alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-P374Elder Justice Initiative ResourcesThis brochure contains links to training and resources to assist law enforcement in identifying, documenting, and sharing information on protecting older adults.By Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office)Categories: Foundations of Community PolicingLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-p374Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFBook • Oct 2019Search 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 04:48 (UTC-5) in 0.89 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5125 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5125

    To amend the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to enhance the 
availability of investment capital for low- and moderate-income housing 
               in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 1994

 Mrs. Roukema introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
            Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to enhance the 
availability of investment capital for low- and moderate-income housing 
               in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Community Reinvestment Improvement 
Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1977.

    (a) In General.--Section 804(a)(1) of the Community Reinvestment 
Act of 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2903(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``or of 
targeted low- and moderate-income neighborhoods designated by the 
appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency or the appropriate 
State bank supervisor'' after ``neighborhoods,''.
    (b) Amendment to Purposes.--Section 802(b) of the Community 
Reinvestment Act of 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901(b)) is amended by inserting 
``or of targeted low- and moderate-income neighborhoods designated by 
the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency or the appropriate 
State bank supervisor'' after ``chartered''.
    (c) Amendment to Definitions.--Section 803 of the Community 
Reinvestment Act of 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2902) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) State bank supervisor.--The term ``State bank 
        supervisor'' has the same meaning as in section 3(r) of the 
        Federal Deposit Insurance Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          18,273
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,765
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,182)
<INVENTORY>                                     30,059
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,310
<PP&E>                                          86,682
<DEPRECIATION>                                (25,727)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 228,952
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,260
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            96
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,472
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   228,952
<SALES>                                        214,243
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               214,243
<CGS>                                          138,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  196,734
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (218)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   692
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,629
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,406
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,852
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,554
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,686
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.68


</TABLE>
§ 76.914 Revocation of certification. ( a ) A franchising authority's certification shall be revoked if: ( 1 ) After the franchising authority has been given a reasonable opportunity to comment and cure any minor nonconformance, it is determined that state and local laws and regulations are in substantial and material conflict with the Commission's regulations governing cable rates.
( 2 ) After being given an opportunity to cure the defect, a franchising authority fails to fulfill one of the three conditions for certification, set forth in 47 U.S.C. 543(a)(3), or any of the provisions of § 76.910(b).
( b ) In all cases of revocation, the Commission will assume jurisdiction over basic service rates until an authority becomes recertified. The Commission will also notify the franchising authority regarding the corrective action that may be taken.
( c ) A cable operator may file a petition for special relief pursuant to § 76.7 of this part seeking revocation of a franchising authority's certification.
( d ) While a petition for revocation is pending, and absent grant of a stay, the franchising authority may continue to regulate the basic service rates of its franchisees.
[58 FR 29753, May 21, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 17972, Apr. 15, 1994; 64 FR 6572, Feb. 10, 1999]
**Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)I, Eric P. Graap, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Fauquier Bankshares,Inc., certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe period ended March 31, 2007, which accompanies this certification fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information containedin the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Fauquier Bankshares, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. Theforegoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims anyobligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.Dated: May 11, 2007/s/ Eric P. Graap
Exhibit 32.1

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 Jupitermedia Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alan M. Meckler, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Alan M. Meckler                 
|Alan M. Meckler                     
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|August 11, 2008
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 2447

In re: GREGORY K. CLINTON , Petitioner.

On Petition s for Writ of Mandamus . ( 3:17

- cr - 00005

- GMG

- RWT

- 1 )

Submitted : March 10, 2020 Decided: March 12, 2020

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

.

Petition s denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Gregory K. Clinton , Petitioner Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gregory K. Clinton petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing his immediate release from custody and restitution payment for his allegedly unlawful confinement

. He also seeks the issuance of an arrest warrant for a federal district court judge. We conclude that Clinton is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) ; In re Murphy

Brown, LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 7 95 (4th Cir. 2018)

. Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought , Murphy

- Brown , 907 F.3d at 795 , and m andamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal , In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 3 53 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Clinton is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition and amended petition s for writ of mandamus. 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.
PETITION S DENIED
Case 16-25229 Doc 1 Filed 08/05/16 Entered 08/05/16 12:18:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 10
Case 16-25229 Doc 1 Filed 08/05/16 Entered 08/05/16 12:18:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 10
Case 16-25229 Doc 1 Filed 08/05/16 Entered 08/05/16 12:18:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 10
Case 16-25229 Doc 1 Filed 08/05/16 Entered 08/05/16 12:18:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 10
Case 16-25229 Doc 1 Filed 08/05/16 Entered 08/05/16 12:18:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 10
Case 16-25229 Doc 1 Filed 08/05/16 Entered 08/05/16 12:18:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 10
Case 16-25229 Doc 1 Filed 08/05/16 Entered 08/05/16 12:18:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 10
Case 16-25229 Doc 1 Filed 08/05/16 Entered 08/05/16 12:18:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 10
Case 16-25229 Doc 1 Filed 08/05/16 Entered 08/05/16 12:18:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 10
Case 16-25229 Doc 1 Filed 08/05/16 Entered 08/05/16 12:18:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 10
Order entered July 8, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 12 - 01621 - CR No. 05 - 12 - 01622 - CR JOSHUA PULLIAM - ROBERTS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas Co unty, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F12 - 34121 - J , F12 - 34219 - J



### O RDER The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommenda tions and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s prese nce at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as m ay be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 23, 2009

d1116 

# Order

November 23, 2009

139168(38)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139168 COA: 284070 Wayne CC: 07-014448-FH SOFRONZO ERIC HORNE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s September 28, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it doe s not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) RONNIE L. HARRIS , ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1 5

- 1425 (KBJ) ) UNITED STATES , ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner Ronnie L. Harris claims that he is “actually and factually innocent of the retaliatory Maryland charges of which the United States Parole Commission based its revocation of . . . parole,” and he seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2 254. (Pet. of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2)(b) , ECF No. 1

. ) For t he following reasons, th is Court will DISMISS this case for want of jurisdiction. First of all, a lthough Harris’ s petition appears to be based on a revocation of parole that was executed by the state of Maryland, see Pet. at 4, 9, Harris is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Edgefield, South Carolina ;

t herefore , it is not entirely clear that Harris is actually “ in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Regardless, section 2254 of Title 28

of the United States Code authorizes federal courts “ to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus” that challeng es a state court conviction under certain conditions

. See id § 2254(b)

- (e). The district court s may grant “[w]rits of habeas corpus

. . . within their respective jurisdictions [,] ” i d

. § 2241(a) (emphasis added) , and t hat language has been interpreted as “limit[ing] the power of a district court to hear and determine aprisoner’s petition for habeas corpus to those situations where the prisoner both is physica lly present in the court’ s territo rial jurisdiction and is detained or held in custody within that jurisdiction. ” U. S. ex rel. Rudick v. Laird , 412 F.2d 16, 20 (2d Cir. 1969)

. Thus, a federal court in the District of Columbia lacks jurisdiction to grant
habeas relief from a Maryland conviction. Furthermore, t o the extent that Harris is challenging the U.S. Parole Commission’s reliance on the Maryland conviction to deny or delay his release to parole, he must proceed under the general habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, before a district court judge who is capable of exercising perso nal jurisdiction over the warden of the prison where he is detained , which , in this case , is

the U nited States District Court for the District of South Carolina. See Stokes v. U.S.

Parole Comm’n , 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“[A] district court may not entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction.”); Rooney v. Sec’y of Army , 405 F.3d 1029, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (habeas “jurisdiction is proper only in the district in which the immediate . . . custodian is located”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Consequently, th is Court has no jurisdiction over Harris’s petition, and will

dismiss t his case without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion

.

DATE: December 11, 2015 

## Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judg e

2
Chairman 

Thomas M. Hite 

Vice-Chairman 

Gary Orner 

Board Members 

Andrew (Dre11)Swope 

Martin J. Marasco 

Ben Stapeljeld Jr. 

Herbert Bolger, Jr. 

Mike Ritchey 

Airport Manager 

Tracy Plessinger 

Blair County Commissioners 

Terrence Tomassetti 

Diane Meting 

Ted Beam 

Solicitor 

David Pertile 

ALTOONA BLAIR COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY .. .3JOAIRPORT DRIVE, SUITE 6 

. --~-:-·.:I ;MARTINSBURG,PA 16662 

. 'Pho/7..e (~14) 793-2027 Fax (814) 793-2655 

-- ... ·:t. 

Mr. Kevin D. Schlemmer 

Chief, EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

February 4, 2015 

RE: OST -2002-11446 (AOO EAS); OST -2003-14528 (BFD EAS); OST -2003-14950 (JHW 

EAS); OST-1997-2523 (FKL EAS) 

Dear Mr. Schlemmer, 

In discussions with our current EAS carrier, Sun Air Express, the option of having 

service provided by Cessna Grand Caravan aircraft was proposed, and after careful 

evaluation, we have concluded that we would support such service as a replacement or in 

addition to the existing Piper Chieftain P A31-3 50 aircraft. 

We understand that the Caravan is a single engine turbo-prop, and as such does not meet 

the Department's twin-engine minimum service requirement. We believe there is sufficient 

value in use of that aircraft to our community that we are prepared to waive our right to twinengine service. We understand that use of single engine aircraft for Essential Air Service 

could eliminate the twin-engine minimum standard in future EAS bids. No change to the 

existing subsidy levels would be requested or required. 

Accordingly, we request that the Department allow Sun Air to operate either Cessna 

Caravan or Piper Chieftain aircraft for the remainder of the current EAS Order. 

Sincerely, 

V.'- {l~ Tracy Ainger, Manager 

Altoon:~~~s~ounty Airport
Agreement to furnish instruments and agreements



 EXHIBIT 4.0 
 NB&T FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. 
 48 N. South Street 
 Wilmington, OH 45177 
 March 20, 2007 
 Securities and
Exchange Commission 
 100 F Street, NE 
 Washington, D.C. 20549

 Re: NB&T Financial Group, Inc. – Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 NB&T Financial Group, Inc., an Ohio corporation
(“NBTF”), is today filing an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-K”), as executed on March 20, 2007. 
 Pursuant to the instructions relating to the Exhibits in Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, NBTF hereby agrees to furnish the Commission, upon request, copies of instruments and agreements defining the rights of
holders of its long-term debt and of the long-term debt of its consolidated subsidiaries, which are not being filed as exhibits to the Form 10-K. Such long-term debt does not exceed 10% of the total assets of NBTF and its subsidiaries on a
consolidated basis. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	/s/ John J. Limbert
	 John J. Limbert
 President and
CEO


  

 61
§ 216.92 Dolphin-safe requirements for tuna harvested in the ETP by large purse seine vessels. ( a ) *U.S. vessels.* Tuna products that contain tuna harvested by U.S. flag purse seine vessels of greater than 400 st (362.8 mt) carrying capacity in the ETP may be labeled dolphin-safe only if the following requirements are met: ( 1 ) Tuna Tracking Forms containing a complete record of all the fishing activities on the trip, certified by the vessel Captain and the observer, are submitted to the Administrator, Southwest Region, at the end of the fishing trip during which the tuna was harvested;
( 2 ) The tuna is delivered for processing to a U.S. tuna processor in a plant located in one of the 50 states, Puerto Rico, or American Samoa that is in compliance with the tuna tracking and verification requirements of § 216.93; and
( 3 ) The tuna or tuna products meet the dolphin-safe labeling standards under § 216.91.
( b ) *Imported tuna.* ( 1 ) Yellowfin tuna or tuna products harvested in the ETP by vessels of greater than 400 st (362.8 mt) carrying capacity and presented for import into the United States may be labeled dolphin-safe only if the yellowfin tuna was harvested by a U.S. vessel fishing in compliance with the requirements of the IDCP and applicable U.S. law, or by a vessel belonging to a nation that has obtained an affirmative finding under § 216.24(f)(8).
( 2 ) Tuna or tuna products, other than yellowfin tuna, harvested in the ETP by purse seine vessels of greater than 400 st (362.8 mt) carrying capacity and presented for import into the United States may be labeled dolphin-safe only if: ( i ) The tuna was harvested by a U.S. vessel fishing in compliance with the requirements of the IDCP and applicable U.S. law, or by a vessel belonging to a nation that is a Party to the Agreement on the IDCP or has applied to become a Party and is adhering to all the requirements of the Agreement on the IDCP Tuna Tracking and Verification Plan;
( ii ) The tuna or tuna products are accompanied as described in § 216.24(f)(3) by a properly completed FCO; and
( iii ) The tuna or tuna products are accompanied as described in § 216.24(f)(3) by valid documentation signed by a representative of the appropriate IDCP member nation, containing the harvesting vessel names and tuna tracking form numbers represented in the shipment, and certifying that: ( A ) There was an IDCP approved observer on board the vessel(s) during the entire trip(s); and
( B ) The tuna contained in the shipment were caught according to the dolphin-safe labeling standards of § 216.91.
[69 FR 55307, Sept. 13, 2004, as amended at 74 FR 1617, Jan. 13, 2009]