alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered October 21, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 22 - 00406 - CR No. 05 - 22 - 00407 - CR No. 05 - 22 - 00408 - CR No. 05 - 22 - 00409 - CR No. 05 - 22 - 00410 - CR No. 05 - 22 - 0041 1 - CR SALVADOR VAZQUEZ CISNEROS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from th e Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 13 - 12685 - X , F13 - 12681 - X, F13 - 12684 - X,

F13 - 12686 - X, F13 - 12682 - X & F13 - 12687 - X

O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s October 18, 2022 second motion to extend the time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed by November 17, 2022

. If appellant fails to file his brief by November 17,– 2

–

2022 , the Court may abate this case for a hearing in the trial court to determine why the brief has not been filed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(b).

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 59 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 59

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Securities and 
 Exchange Commission relating to ``Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 2024

 Ms. Lummis introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Securities and 
 Exchange Commission relating to ``Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to 
``Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121'' (87 Fed. Reg. 21015 (April 11, 
2022) and a letter of opinion from the Government Accountability Office 
dated October 31, 2023 (which was printed in the Congressional Record 
on November 1, 2023, on pages S5310-5312), concluding that such Staff 
Accounting Bulletin is a rule under chapter 8 of title 5, United States 
Code), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
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 Annual Report of Freedom 7, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Virginia K. Sourlis,
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and
      belief:





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.








Freedom
                7, Inc.Dated:
                March 19, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Virginia
                K. SourlisVirginia
                K. SourlisPrincipal
                Executive Officer
              Principal
                Financial Officer




Page
          23 of
          23
#### State *vs.*Volney Newell.

May Term, 1899.

Present: Rowell, Tyler, Munson, Start, Thompson and Watson, JJ.

Opinion filed July 28, 1899.

*Respondent’s Appeal to County Court, when May Be Entered.*— .A respondent who has appealed to the county court from the judgment and sentence of a justice, may enter his appeal on the first day of the term as matter of right, or may enter it at any later day during the term if the court in its discretion will permit him; and he has a legal right to have the court exercise its discretion. To refuse as matter of law to entertain his appeal is error.

Complaint for intoxication. Heard on motion of the *477respondent to be allowed to enter his appeal at the March term, 1899, Chittenden county, *Taft,*C. J., presiding. Motion denied. The respondent excepted.

*V. A. Billiard*for the respondent.

*R. E. Brown,*State’s Attorney, for the State.

Start, J.

The respondent was convicted of the crime of intoxication before the Burlington city court and sentenced to pay a fine and costs of prosecution, and thereupon took an appeal to the March term, 1899, of the Chittenden county court. The court convened on the 8th day of March, 1899, and, on the 18th day of March, 1899, the respondent asked leave to enter his appeal. The court ruled that the appeal should have been entered on the first day of the term, and, as a matter of law, denied the respondent’s motion. As we construe the exceptions, the court below ryled, as a matter of law, that the appeal could not be entered after the first day of the term. This was error. On the first day of the term, the respondent could enter his appeal as a matter of right, and the court, in its discretion, could have allowed him to do so at any time thereafter during the term. *Bennet*v. *Whitney,*1 Tyler 59; *Miller*v. *Goold,*2 Tyler 405. The respondent has a right to have the court below exercise its discretion and say whether, under the circumstances, he ought to be allowed to enter his appeal; and, for this purpose, the cause must be remanded. *Johnson*v. *Shumway,*65 Vt. 389; *Ranney*v. *St.J. & L. C. R. R., Co.,*67 Vt. 594.

*Exceptions sustained and cause remanded.*
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Decision MakingDisabilitiesEducational LegislationElementary Secondary EducationFederal LegislationIndividualized Education ProgramsIndividualized Family Service PlansParent ParticipationParent ResponsibilityParent RightsParent School RelationshipPreschool EducationRelated Services (Special Education)Special Education

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
§ 2522.710 What are my evaluation requirements? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 46034 , May 28, 2024.
Cross Reference
Link to a correction published at 89 FR 66615 , Aug. 16, 2024.
( a ) If you are a State commission, you must establish and enforce evaluation requirements for your State formula subgrantees, as you deem appropriate.
( b ) If you are a State competitive or direct Corporation AmeriCorps grantee (other than an Education Award Program grantee), and your average annual Corporation program grant is $500,000 or more, you must arrange for an independent evaluation of your program, and you must submit the evaluation with any application to the Corporation for competitive funds as required in § 2522.730 of this subpart.
( c ) If you are a State competitive or direct Corporation AmeriCorps grantee whose average annual Corporation program grant is less than $500,000, or an Education Award Program grantee, you must conduct an internal evaluation of your program, and you must submit the evaluation with any application to the Corporation for competitive funds as required in § 2522.730 of this subpart.
( d ) The Corporation may, in its discretion, supersede these requirements with an alternative evaluation approach, including one conducted by the Corporation at the national level.
( e ) Grantees must cooperate fully with all Corporation evaluation activities.
[70 FR 39603, July 8, 2005]
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally

disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may

be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 12 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

JESUS JOHN HERNANDEZ

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden,

Englewood FCI; UNITED STATES

MARSHAL SERVICE; and UNITED

STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 98-1358

(D.C. 98-D-771)

(District of Colorado)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, and BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges,

 

Petitioner Jesus John Hernandez appeals the district court’s order denying his

petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Mr. Hernandez sought release 

pending a parole revocation proceeding.1 The government reports (and Mr. Hernandez
2

does not dispute) that the Parole Commission held a hearing on July 20, 1998 and

revoked his parole. In his appellate brief, Mr. Hernandez challenges the district court’s

refusal to release him pending the parole revocation hearing on several grounds. 

We agree with the government that Mr. Hernandez’s appeal is moot. Because the

parole revocation hearing has already been held, the question of Mr. Hernandez’s release

pending the hearing is no longer live. Mr. Hernandez now lacks a legally cognizable

interest in the decision whether to release him on bail before that hearing. See Murphy v.

Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982) (per curiam) (concluding that a defendant’s claim to

pretrial bail was moot once he was convicted); United States v. O’Shaughnessy, 772 F.2d

112, 113 (5th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (observing that, after the defendant’s conviction,

“[n]either pretrial detention nor release on pretrial bail may now be ordered”). Because

the proceeding before us concerns only the denial of his request for bail pending the

parole revocation hearing and does not concern the Parole Commission’s decision to deny

parole, we conclude that the case is moot.

Accordingly, Mr. Hernandez’s appeal is DISMISSED as moot. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Robert H. Henry

Circuit Judge
BILLING CODE: 6715-01-M

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE:

THURSDAY, JULY 15, 2021 AT 10:00 A.M.

PLACE:

VIRTUAL MEETING. NOTE: BECAUSE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, WE WILL 

CONDUCT THE OPEN MEETING VIRTUALLY. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ACCESS

THE MEETING, SEE THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW.

STATUS:

THIS MEETING WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. TO ACCESS THE VIRTUAL 

MEETING, GO TO THE COMMISSION’S WEBSITE www.fec.gov AND CLICK ON THE 

BANNER TO BE TAKEN TO THE MEETING PAGE.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Draft Advisory Opinion 2021-06: Representative Robin Kelly and the 

Democratic Party of Illinois 

Draft Advisory Opinion 2021-07: PAC Management Services LLC 

(“PACMS”)

Management and Administrative Matters

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer

Telephone: (202) 694-1220

Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b

Signed: _____________________________________

Laura E. Sinram

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission

Submitted: July 8, 2021
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Pathway to independence (PI) Award.                    

*Date:*                         December 11, 2006.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852. (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Gerald L. McLaughlin, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute of Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 220, MSC 8401, 6101 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-8401. 301-402-6626.                         *gm145a@nih.gov*.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 21, 2006.

David Clary, 

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 06-9459 Filed 11-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, James R. Sulat, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge the Quarterly Report of Maxygen, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Maxygen, Inc.



By:

/s/ James R. SulatName:

James R. SulatTitle:

Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial OfficerDate:

May 6, 2010
SENATE OF THE UNITED ST ATES 

NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION { 

Convened January 3, 1983 

Adjourned November 18, 1983 

Convened January 23, 1984 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Tuesday, March 6, 1984 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WILLIAM F. HILDENBRAND, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Gerald A. Hackett, Executive Clerk 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Mar. 8, 1983- - Motion entered to reconsider the vote by which the resolution of 

ratification to the Montreal Protocols No. 3 and 4 (Ex. B., 95-1) was defeated--Mr. 

Baker. 
1 

TREATIES 

Calendar Treaty Subject Reported 

No. Doc. No. Bv 

1 EX. B, Montreal Aviation Protocols Nos. 3 and 4 Feb 10 83 Reported 

95-1 favorably, by Mr. Percy, 

Committee on Foreign 

Relations, with a proposed 

resolution of advice and 

consent to ratification 

with conditions (Printed 

renort--Ex. Ret>t. 98-1) 

NOMINATIONS 

Calendar Message Nominee, Office, And Predecessor Reported 

No. No. Bv 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

* 468 633 William A. Wilson, of California, to be Feb 27, 84 Mr. Percy, 

Ambassador Extraordinary and Committee on Foreign 

Plenipotentiary of the United States of Relations, with printed 

America to the Holy See. report - Ex.Rept 98-21. 

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON 

LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION 

SCIENCE 

* 490 629-10 Bessie Boehm Moore, of Arkansas, to be a Mar 1, 84 Mr. Hatch, 

Member of the National Commission on Committee on Labor and 

Libraries and Information Science for a Human Resources, without 

term expiring July 19, 1988. printed report. 

(Reappointment} 

[NEW REPORTS] 
2 

-- Calendar Message Nominee, Office, And Predecessor Reported 

No. No. Bv 

- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

491 628-11 John G. Keane, of Ilhno1s, to be Director Mar 5, 84 Mr. Roth, 

of the Census, vice Bruce Chapman. Committee on Governmental 

Affairs, without printed 

report. .. *S1gn1f1es nom1nee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly 

constituted committee of the Senate. 
3 

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE 

Foreign Service nominations beginning Phillp Birnbaum, and ending Ronald Allen Witherell, 

which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 

30, 1984.
#### § 170.200 Applicability.

The standards and implementation specifications adopted in this part apply with respect to Health Information technology.

[85 FR 70082, Nov. 4, 2020]
§ 171.205 Health IT performance exception—When will an actor's practice that is implemented to maintain or improve health IT performance and that is likely to interfere with the access, exchange, or use of electronic health information not be considered information blocking? An actor's practice that is implemented to maintain or improve health IT performance and that is likely to interfere with the access, exchange, or use of electronic health information will not be considered information blocking when the practice meets a condition in paragraph (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section, as applicable to the particular practice and the reason for its implementation. ( a ) *Maintenance and improvements to health IT.* When an actor implements a practice that makes health IT under that actor's control temporarily unavailable, or temporarily degrades the performance of health IT, in order to perform maintenance or improvements to the health IT, the actor's practice must be— ( 1 ) Implemented for a period of time no longer than necessary to complete the maintenance or improvements for which the health IT was made unavailable or the health IT's performance degraded;
( 2 ) Implemented in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner; and
( 3 ) If the unavailability or degradation is initiated by a health IT developer of certified health IT, health information exchange, or health information network: ( i ) *Planned.* Consistent with existing service level agreements between the individual or entity to whom the health IT developer of certified health IT, health information exchange, or health information network supplied the health IT; or
( ii ) *Unplanned.* Consistent with existing service level agreements between the individual or entity; or agreed to by the individual or entity to whom the health IT developer of certified health IT, health information exchange, or health information network supplied the health IT.
( b ) *Assured level of performance.* An actor may take action against a third-party application that is negatively impacting the health IT's performance, provided that the practice is— ( 1 ) For a period of time no longer than necessary to resolve any negative impacts;
( 2 ) Implemented in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner; and
( 3 ) Consistent with existing service level agreements, where applicable.
( c ) *Practices that prevent harm.* If the unavailability of health IT for maintenance or improvements is initiated by an actor in response to a risk of harm to a patient or another person, the actor does not need to satisfy the requirements of this section, but must comply with all requirements of § 171.201 at all relevant times to qualify for an exception.
( d ) *Security-related practices.* If the unavailability of health IT for maintenance or improvements is initiated by an actor in response to a security risk to electronic health information, the actor does not need to satisfy the requirements of this section, but must comply with all requirements of § 171.203 at all relevant times to qualify for an exception.
#### § 158.342 Invitation for public comments.

The Secretary will invite public comment regarding a State's request for an adjustment to the MLR standard. All public comments must be submitted in writing within 10 days of the posting of the request, and must be submitted in the manner prescribed by the Secretary. The Secretary will consider timely public comments in assessing a State's request for an adjustment to the MLR standard.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASIDNGTON, D.C.

IN THE MATTER OF EMPIRE FLIGHT ACADEMY Docket No. FAA-2011-0290 (CP10EA0004) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) J.E. Sullivan

AGENCY'S WITNESS/EXHffiiT LIST 7'T 1 JH! ! 0 "**I'"~•** l• 

### 8

,., 1,1**~I,** '**~·** " I "i /"\ ,U• f

COMES NOW Complainant (the Agency), by and through its designated representative, the Regional Counsel for the Eastern Region and his duly designated agents, and submits that its Witness/Exhibit List that was filed on March 1, 2012 or thereabouts, in accordance with the Order of the ALJ in this proceeding, remains unchanged. Sincerely, ALFRED R. JOHNSON, JR. REGIONAL COUNSEL

·. By: ··...

## sa~ w -<

## <•.~ --· ••

## ~~om~..

## -~ - - Zachary M. erman Attorney Office ofthe Eastern Regional Counsel (FAA)

1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 Phone: (718)553-3258 Telefax: (718)995-5699 Date: June 29, 2012 

# RECEIVED JUL -9,2012 

# HEARING DOCKET

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Agency's Witness and Exhibit List has been sent via ftrst class mail and e-mail to the following: John Zaremba Rte. 109, Hangar 3, Republic Airport Farmingdale, NY 11735 Email: J.Zaremba@empireairways.com The Honorable J. E. Sullivan Administrative Law Judge

---- -------·-**-~·· ~-U:S;--Depamnentof-llmls'"'POl"<''.Ir+.ta"timoon-n**  

### Offtce ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 Washington, DC 20590 Diane.Mays@DOT.GOV

I hereby certify that the foregoing Agency's Witness and Exhibit Listhas been sent via ftrst class mail to the following: Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building, Suite 2Wl000 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Room924A Washington, D.C. 20591

-·. ---- --·- -·--**-·------~~·** --- --· ,_**--·~--,-~-~---·-----** 

### Date: 

### JUN 29 2012 vu 

## _df ,_-L.



## ------- ,.; .ti.saHooks Paralegal Specialist Federal Aviation Administration Office ofRegional Counsel 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOHN MICHAEL TEDESCO,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 457 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of April, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.