alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dat~ ol 

report 

1988 

Sept 11 

11 

~ruutr nf tqt luitr~ &tutra 

NINETIETH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION {Convened January xo, 1967 

AdJourned December z;;, z967 

SECOND SESSION {Convened January 15, 1968 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Prepared under the direction of FRANCIS R. V ALEO, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A. HACKETT, Executive Clerk 

Thursday, September 12, 1968 

NOMINATIONS 

Calendar Message Name of nommee Office Predecessor 

No. No. 

-

·-· ---

DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

869 251 Shirley M Hufstedler, of U S circuit, Judge, 9th A new position created 

California. CJrcuit. under Public Law 

90-347 approved 

June 18, 1968. 

URBAN MASS 

TRANSPORTATION 

ADMINISTRATOR 

870 292 Paul L Sxtton, of Georgia __ Urban Mass Transporta- New positiOn. 

tion Administrator. 

I 

98- 022-68-No 187 

U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 19GB
AFS

- 13

- 3 6 9

- E June 13, 2013

Exemption No. 1079 6

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 1 3

- 0 429

Ms

. Elizabeth Nickle

Parent of Emma Webster

10612 Mapleleaf Drive

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

Dear Ms. Nickle :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption,

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decis ion

By letter received May 7, 2013 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administrat ion (FAA) on

behalf of Emma Webster for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

. That exemp tion , if granted, would allow Emma to exceed the

specified weight limit for an FAA

- approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by

AmSafe Corporation ) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States

(U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good caus e exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exem ption would not set a precedent and any

delay in acting on this petition would be det rimental to Emma

.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circum stances similar in all material respects to

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA

found that numerous p eople with physical challenges had previously completed flights using

restraint systems that addresse d unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the2

petition , if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by

persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the p etitioner in the enclosed grant;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the

situation you present ; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Emma Webster an exempti on from § 121.311(b). In

addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Emma is

aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary

to allow h er to use an FAA

- approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft

.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted w ith at least one of Emma ’s parents or a caregiver accompanying her

. Emma Webster may only occupy a passenger seat with no

passenger se ated behind her

. In addition, Emma ’s parent or ca regiver must carry a copy of

this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours

before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on June 30 , 201 8 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
Opinion issued July 6, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00081-CR

———————————

CLYDE BOLT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1706592

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Clyde Bolt pleaded guilty to the offense of murder. See TEX.

PENAL CODE § 19.02. The trial court signed a judgment of conviction, assessing 

punishment at 35 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional 
2

Institutions Division. Appellant filed a pro se motion for new trial and notice of 

appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

A defendant may waive his right to appeal in all but capital cases. See 

Carson v. State, 559 S.W.3d 489, 492–93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). As part of his 

guilty plea, appellant signed a “Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to 

Stipulate, and Judicial Confession” in which he waived the right to appeal, stating:

I understand the prosecutor’s punishment recommendation is 40 

years TDCJ.

I do not accept this recommendation as a plea bargain. 

Instead, I intend to enter a plea of guilty without an agreed 

recommendation of punishment from the prosecutor and request that 

my punishment should be set by the judge. I waive any further 

time to prepare for trial to which I or my attorney may be entitled. 

Further, in exchange for the state giving up their right to trial, I agree 

to waive any right of appeal which I may have.

By agreeing to waive its right to a jury trial, the State gave consideration for 

appellant’s waiver of his right of appeal. See id. at 494. The trial court’s 

certification of defendant’s right of appeal is included in the records on appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2. The trial court’s certification states that defendant waived the

right of appeal. The record supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. 

State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no 

right of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Chavez v. 

State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
3

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Date of 

report 

--

1989 

Nov 12 

~ruutr nf tqr luitrb itutrs 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION {Convened January 31 I9~ 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Prepared under the direction of FRAN as R. V ALEO, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A. HACKETT, Executive derk 

Tuesday, November 18, 1969 

NOMINATION 

Calendar Message Name of nominee 

I 

Ofllce Predeeeasor 

No. No. 

SUPREME COURT OF 

THE UNITED STATES 

-

677 610 Clement F. Haynsworth, An Associate Justice of the [Reported favorably by 

Jr., of South Carolina. Supreme Court of the Mr. Hruska, from 

Umted States the Committee on 

the Judiciary, with 

individual views. 

(See Ex. Rept. 

91-12, 91st Cong., 

1st sess.)] 

37-022-69-No. 107 

u I IO•ERHiiENT P1HHTIHG OFFlCE lSU
Exhibit 34.4

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors 

HSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private Limited:

 

We have examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying “Report on Compliance With Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant To Item 1122 of Regulation AB Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” (Exhibit 33.4) that HSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private Limited (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB (Servicing Criteria)applicable to the servicing of asset backed securitization transactions backed by home equity loan receivables, as described in Schedule I of Exhibit 33.4 (the Applicable Servicing Criteria ), as of and for the period from July 12, 2006 (date of issuance of the initial asset-backed securitization transaction covered by this report) through December 31, 2006.  Exhibit 33.4 identifies the individual asset-backed securitization transactions (theCovered Transactions) defined by management as part of their assessment. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)****and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Covered Transactions, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Covered Transactions, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by theCompany during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the period July 12, 2006 through December 31, 2006 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 5, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2142

KAYI GOUDEAGBE, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals. 

Submitted: May 19, 2009 Decided: June 17, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. 

Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Lyle D. 

Jentzer, Senior Litigation Counsel, Edward J. Duffy, Trial 

Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Kayi Goudeagbe, a native and citizen of Togo, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration 

judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

 Before this court, Goudeagbe challenges the 

determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for 

asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying 

eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence 

[s]he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder 

could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. 

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed 

the evidence of record and conclude that Goudeagbe fails to show 

that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we 

cannot grant the relief that she seeks. 

 Additionally, we uphold the denial of Goudeagbe’s 

request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of 

proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even 

though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant 

who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for 

withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara 

v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because 

2 
3 

Goudeagbe failed to show that she is eligible for asylum, she 

cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. 

 We also find that substantial evidence supports the 

finding that Goudeagbe failed to meet the standard for relief 

under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an 

applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that 

he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country 

of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009). We find that 

Goudeagbe failed to make the requisite showing before the 

immigration court. 

 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
§ 1169.6 Identification required when requesting access to NEH records pertaining to an individual. ( a ) Before granting access to personal information under the Privacy Act, NEH may require that the individual requesting such access provide reasonable proof of his or her identity.
( b ) Except in the case of NEH employees and those individuals who request in-person inspection, NEH generally will endeavor to provide access to records via mail or email. In such instances, NEH will first confirm that the physical and/or email addresses provided by the requester match those contained with the NEH system of records. Depending upon the sensitivity of the records requested, and whether the addresses match as described in the preceding sentence, NEH may also request that the individual verify his or her identity by providing certain minimum identifying data, such as date or place of birth and/or copies of a valid driver's license or passport. Where the information sought is of a particularly sensitive nature, and/or where the individual cannot provide minimum identifying data, NEH may require that the individual seeking access submit a notarized statement of identity or a signed statement asserting and acknowledging that knowingly or willfully seeking or obtaining access to records about another person under false pretenses may result in a fine of up to $5,000.
( c ) NEH will provide access by in-person examination to NEH employees as well as to individuals who specifically request disclosure in person. In such instances, the individual requesting disclosure may prove identity by producing an employee identification card, driver's license, or other license, permit or pass used for routine identification purposes. If the individual is unable to provide suitable documentation or identification, NEH may require that he or she stipulate, in writing, that knowingly or willingly seeking or obtaining access to records about another person under false pretenses is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000.
( d ) Identity verification procedures shall not: ( 1 ) Be so complicated as to discourage unnecessarily individuals from seeking access to information about themselves;
( 2 ) Be required of an individual seeking access to records that normally would be available under FOIA (see 45 CFR part 1171);
( 3 ) Require, as a condition to access, the provision of a social security number, unless a social security number is the only means by which NEH may retrieve the records that are the subject of the request.
( 4 ) Require that the individual explain or justify his or her need for access to any record under this part.
§ 902.80 General. ( a ) This subpart prescribes fees for services performed by the Corporation under subparts D and E of this part. This subpart shall only apply to the services described herein. The fees for the service listed reflect the actual cost of the work involved in compiling requested record and copying, if necessary.
( b ) A fee shall not be charged for time spent in resolving legal or policy issues.
[41 FR 43143, Sept. 30, 1976, as amended at 52 FR 26677, July 16, 1987]
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of ADMA Biologics, Inc.; |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: | April 30, 2013 | /s/  Adam S. GrossmanAdam S. GrossmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |
|-------|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
----

----

**EXHIBIT        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

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

| (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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November                  9, 2006 | /s/                  Paul                  Roszel                                  |
|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              | Paul                  Roszel                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|                              | President,                  Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                     |

----
§ 1149.5 What is a false claim? ( a ) A claim submitted to the NEA is “false” if it: ( 1 ) Is false, fictitious or fraudulent;
( 2 ) Includes or is supported by a written statement which asserts or contains a material fact which is false, fictitious, or fraudulent;
( 3 ) Includes or is supported by a written statement which is false, fictitious or fraudulent because it omits a material fact that you have a duty to include in the statement; or
( 4 ) Is for payment for the provision of property or services which you have not provided as claimed.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### § 312.2 Discriminatory practices prohibited.

All project land and water areas which are open to the public shall be available for use and enjoyment by the public without regard to race, creed, color or national origin. Each lessee or licensee of a project area under lease or license providing for a public or quasi-public use, including group camp activities, and each concessionaire of a lessee or licensee providing a service to the public including facilities and accommodations, shall not discriminate against any person or persons because of race, creed, color or national origin in the conduct of its operations under the lease, license or concession agreement.

[29 FR 9710, July 18, 1964]
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION { co:o.-m-"EDJANUARY" 1995 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Monday, March 6, 1995 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF SHEILA P. BURKE, 

SECRETARYOF THESENATE 

By Gerald A. Hackett, Executive Clerk 
1 

RESOLUTIONS 

CALENDAR Ex REs REPORTED 

SUBJECT 

No No BY 
2 

TREATIES 

- CALENDAR TREATY R EPORTED 

No. Doo.No. SUBJECT BY 
3 

NOMINATIONS 

CALENDAR MESSAGE" REPORTED 

No No 

NOMINEE, OFFICE, AND PREDECESSOR l3Y 

THE JUDICIARY 

18 1.53 Lacy H. Thornburg, of North Carolina, to be Feb 23, 95 Reported by Mr. Hatch, 

United States District Judge for the Western Committee on the Judiciary, District of North Carolina, vice Robert D. without printed report. 

Potter, retired. 

19 155 Sidney H. Stein, of New York, to be United States Feb 23, 95 Reported by Mr. Hatch, 

District Judge for the Southern District of.New Committee on the Judiciary, York, vice Pierre N. Leva!, elevated. Wlthoutprinted report. 

20 156 Thadd Heartfield, of Texas, to be United States Feb 23, 95 Reported by Mr. Hatch, 

District Judge for the Eastern District of Committee on the Judiciary, 

Texas, vice Robert M. Parker, elevated. without printed report. 

21 157 David Folsom, ofTexas, to be United States Feb 23, 95 Reported by Mr. Hatch, 

District Judge for the Eastern District of Committee on the Judiciary, 

Texas, vice Sam B. Hall, Jr., deceased. without printed report. 

22 158 Sandra L. Lynch, of Massachusetts, to be United Feb 23, 95 Reported by Mr. Hatch, 

States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, vice Committee on the Judiciary, 

Stephen G. Breyer, elevated. Wlthout printed report. 

INI'ERNATIONAL BANKS 

• 31 2 Robert. E. Rubin, of New York, to be United Feb 28, 95 Reported by Mr. Helms, 

States Governor ofthe International Monetary ' 

Committee on Foreign Relations, 

Fund for a term of five years; United States withoutprintedxeport. 

Governor of the International Bank for 

Reconstruction and Development for a term of 

five years; United States Governor of the 

Inter-Amencan Development Bank for a term 

of five years; United States Governor of the 

African Development Bank for a term of five 

years; United States Governor of the Asian 

Development Bank; United States Governor of 

the Afncan Development Fund; United States 

Governor of the European Bank for 

Reconstruction and Development. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

* 32 61 Herschelle Challenor, of Georgia, to be a Member Mar 2, 95 Reported by Mr. 

of the National Security Education Board for a Thurmond, Committee on Armed 

termoffouryears, vice Steven Muller . Services,. 

• 33 62 Sheila Cheston, of the District of Columbia, to be Mar 2, 95 Reported by Mr. General Counsel of the Department of the Air Th~nd Conwri~eonArmed 

Force, vice Gilbert F. Casellas. Services,. 

* Stgmftes nommee's commLtmen.t to respond to requests to appear and testtfy before any duly constLtuted comrmttee of the Senate 
4 

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK