alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 1/28/16 P. v. Adams CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PAUL E DW ARD ADAMS

,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B 2 6 3313

(Super. Ct. No. BA191617

- 01 )

( Los Angeles County)

Paul E dward Adams appeals a n order denying his petition to recall his

sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126. 1

On January 5, 200 0, Adams was convicted of attempted robbery and assault

with a deadly weapon, with findings of personal deadly weapon use , two prior serious

felony strike convictions, and service of two prior prison terms. (§§ 664, 211, 245, subd.

(a)(1), 12022, subd. (b )(1), 667, subds. (b)

- (i), 1170.12, subds. (a)

- (d), 667.5, subd. (b).)

On February 2, 2000, the trial court sentenc ed Adams to a prison term of 25 years to life,

as a third strike offender.

On August 21, 2014, Adams filed a petition to recall his sente nce pursuant

to section 1170.126. On March 16, 2015, the trial court considered and denied the

petition, ruling that Adams's current conviction for attempted robbery is a serious felony

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

pursuant to section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(39), thus precluding reca ll of sentence and

resentencing.

We appointed counsel to represent Adams i n this appeal. After counsel's

examination of the record, h e filed an opening brief raising no issues.

On November 12

, 20 1 5 , we advised Adams by mail that he had 30 days

within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on

appeal. We have not received a response.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Adams ' s attorney

has fully complied with h is responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. ( People v.

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P.J.

We concur:

YEGAN

, J.

PERREN , J.3 William C. Ryan, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

____________ __________________

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1182.html[7/22/2015 3:12:13 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvd-o7rf

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1182

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I am perfectly capable of managing my own 403b and IRA and want the government to stay out of my business.

 I started planning when I began to work. Maybe if they actually taught something in school that made the youth

 think instead of how they feel the youth may learn how to plan for themselves. I believe that everyone has

 personal responsibility for themselves and need to be educated on how to take care of themselves. Stop trying to

 confiscate what I earned and saved and want to tell me what to do with it.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.B

                           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 on Form 10-K/A for the period ending
December 31, 2002, of El Paso CGP Company (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D.
Dwight Scott, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify (i)
that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                  /s/ D. DWIGHT SCOTT
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                     D. Dwight Scott
                                               Executive Vice President and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                              (Principal Financial Officer)

                                          June 25, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to El Paso CGP Company and will be retained by El Paso CGP Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 397
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 397 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 397.217 Waiver processing. ( a ) The Administrator may initiate an investigation of any statement in an application and utilize any relevant facts obtained by that investigation. The Administrator may solicit and accept submissions from third persons relevant to an application and will provide the applicant an opportunity to respond to all third person submissions. In evaluating an application, the Administrator may convene a hearing or conference, if a hearing or conference will advance the evaluation of the application.
( b ) The Administrator may dismiss the application without prejudice if: ( 1 ) he or she determines that there is insufficient information upon which to base a determination;
( 2 ) Upon his or her request, additional information is not submitted by the applicant; or
( 3 ) The applicant fails to provide the notice required by this subpart.
( c ) Except as provided in this subpart, the Administrator will only consider an application for a waiver of preemption determination if: ( 1 ) The applicant expressly acknowledges in its application that the highway routing designation of the State, political subdivision thereof, or Indian tribe for which the determination is sought is preempted by the Act or the regulations thereunder; or
( 2 ) The highway routing designation of the State, political subdivision thereof, or Indian tribe has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or in a determination issued pursuant to § 397.211 to be preempted by the Act or the regulations issued thereunder.
( d ) When the Administrator has received all substantive information necessary to process an application for a waiver of preemption determination, notice of that fact will be served upon the applicant. Additional notice to all other persons who received notice of the proceeding may be served by publishing a notice in the Federal Register.
EXHIBIT
32.1





Certification Pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350)




The
undersigned, as the chief executive officer of PAB Bankshares, Inc., certifies,
to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2008, which accompanies this certification fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PAB
Bankshares, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing
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.





Dated
this 10th day of November, 2008.







/s/M.BurkeWelsh,
    Jr.M. Burke
      Welsh, Jr.President
      and Chief Executive Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
PAB Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by PAB Bankshares, Inc. and furnished
to the SEC or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 179 (Monday, September 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 52895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4573]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Research Resources; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 Center for Research Resources 
Initial Review Group, Comparative Medicine Review Committee. RIRG-
C--Parent Meeting.
    Date: October 9-10, 2007.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: John R. Glowa, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Center for Research Resources, or, National 
Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., 1 Democracy Plaza, Room 
1078, MSC 4874, Bethesda, MD 20892-4874, 301-435-0807, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adcac1c2daccc7edc0ccc4c183c3c4c583cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe999291899f94be939f9792d0909796d0999188">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.371, Biomedical 
Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, 93.306, 93.333, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 7, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-4573 Filed 9-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The City of Geneva, Respondent, *v.*Robert W. Henson, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.

*City of Geneva*v. *Henson,*142 App. Div. 928, affirmed.

(Argued April 24, 1911;

decided May 9, 1911.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 21, 1911, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners of appraisal in condemnation proceedings, with notice of intention to bring up for review an interlocutory judgment entered upon the report of a referee determining the extent of the appellant’s ownership of lands sought to be condemned.

*John D. Lynn, Philip N. Nicholas*and *John G. Farwell*for appellant;

*Arthur J. Hammond*and *W. Smith O'Brien*for respondent.

*Thomas-Oarmody, Attorney-General {Henry S. Bacon*and *J. A. Kellogg*of counsel), for state of New York.

*Per Curiam.*

Upon a former review in this court of the proceedings had in this case, in which it had been held in the "courts below that the title of the lands under the water of Seneca lake in front of the western shore thereof had passed to the state of Massachusetts under the treaty of Hartford in 1786 and that Henson, by *546reason of his ownership of the uplands bordering upon the lake, became the owner of the lands under the waters thereof out to the point sought to be condemned in this proceeding, it was held that the order should be reversed upon the ground that in the description under which Henson derived title, his line ran to the lake and thence along the shore thereof, thus indicating an intention not to convey the title to the lands under water out to the center of the lake, but did include all docks, buildings and fixtures, rights and privileges then owned by the grantor, etc. *(City of Geneva*v. *Henson,*195 N. Y. 444.)

On the retrial of the issues the referee has now found that under a proper construction of the treaty of Hart: ford the state of New York did not divest itself of the lands under the water, of Seneca lake, it being navigable and used for commerce; and as to the extent of the title of Henson of the lands under the waters of the lake in front of his premises he followed substantially the opinion of this court on its former review. The report of the referee having been confirmed and the appraisal had, the case comes up for' review under a unanimous affirmance of the Appellate Division.

We do not deem it necessary to now construe the treaty of Hartford and determine the question as to whether or not the lands under the water of Seneca lake passed to the state of Massachusetts. The question presented is as to the extent of the title of Henson. That question has to be determined from the description in his deed and that of his predecessors in interest and by his occupancy, and the determination of that question is not affected by the treaty, whatever may be its construction. This question was fully considered in the former review by this court, and, therefore, the order should be affirmed, with costs, upon that opinion.

Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Collin, JJ.., concur.

Order affirmed.
1210-AB32-2-1294.html[7/24/2015 10:27:44 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvv-3gza

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1789

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Sharon Kenner Lyons

General Comment

We do not believe the Federal Goverment should decide how or when we should use our retirement or

 investments! This is America which has always allow citizens the right to choose! My father fought for these

 rights in World War II (Freedom) an he would not be happy in the direction which this country is headed!!

We do not agree with with this Purposed Rule!!! 

Patrick & Sharon Lyons
Exhibit 10.12


 


Spherix Incorporated


 


G.V. Levin Exit Agreement Resolution


 


It
is hereby resolved that:


 


In
appreciation of the 37 years of Dr. Gilbert V. Levin’s service as President
and/or Chief Executive Officer of Spherix, during which time he also made many
significant technical contributions, including the inventions upon which the
capitalized value of the Company is largely based; and in anticipation of his
retirement from the Company, the following awards are hereby made to him by
Spherix:


 


1.       Upon expiration
of Dr. Levin’s Employment Agreement on December 31, 2004, he will continue with
the Company in the position of Executive Officer for Science, beginning at an
annual salary to be determined, but no less than his current salary of
$118,000, serving as a regular employee at the will of the Company, during
which time he will continue to participate in his 401(k) plan.  He will remain eligible for election as
Director and Chair.


 


2.       Dr.
Levin’s Amended Employment Agreement is hereby restated in the form attached
(see Exhibit 10.5).  It provides
lifetime payments of $12,500 each quarter following his full retirement from
the Company.


 


3.       Dr.
Levin’s Consulting Agreement is hereby restated in the form attached (see
Exhibit 10.3).  It limits his post-retirement
consultation to any Company requests that may be issued to him from time
to time.  No minimum amount of
consulting time is required.  For any
consulting time so requested and provided, Dr. Levin will be compensated at the
rate of $2,000 per day, subject to the Federal CIP, plus related expenses.


 


4.       The stock option award of 100,000 shares
granted to Dr. Levin on November 12, 2003, remains unchanged.


 


5.       Dr. Levin will be provided suitable office
space and secretarial support at Spherix headquarters, and at the newly leased
BioSpherix Division location, at no cost to him for a period of three years
after his complete retirement from Spherix.


 


6.       Dr. Levin will be allowed free use of his
computer Internet hook-up to Spherix for a period of three years after his
complete retirement from the Company.


 


7.       Dr. Levin is given full title to all Company
files on the Viking Mission to Mars, the files on the life detection methods he
developed, and title to the related developmental instruments. He will be
allowed to store these materials on-site at Spherix at no cost for a period of
five years.


 


8.       Dr. Levin is granted title to the watercolor
painting by Willard Bond that hangs in his office.


 


9.       The Company will defend Dr. Levin from all
lawsuits filed against him resulting from legitimate actions taken by him on
behalf of the Company.


 


10.     The Company confirms its Resolution of February
19, 1998, concerning long-term care insurance and health insurance for Dr.
Levin and his wife, Karen Levin.


 


11.     This Resolution and the Agreements and Resolution
hereto attached, supersede and replace all previous agreements concerning
Spherix’s obligations for Dr. Levin’s retirement benefits.
[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-11817

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-23035-CV-MGC

GRIGSBY & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

CALVIN B. GRIGSBY, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

M SECURITIES INVESTMENT,

HOWARD GARY & COMPANY,

HOWARD V. GARY,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

SECURITIES DEALERS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(September 4, 2012)

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before PRYOR and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and EVANS, District Judge.

*

O R D E R:

This matter is before the Court on a Petition for Rehearing. The Court

presently plans to enter, in the future, an order along this line:

“The motion for rehearing is DENIED, except our decision on

the denial of an injunction of arbitration is totally withdrawn: that

issue is moot given that the arbitration has been completed with the

participation of the parties.

The order confirming the arbitration award is vacated and the

case remanded for further proceedings. The award may be confirmed

only if the district court determines de novo -- anew, by itself, and for

itself -- that the Defendants did not waive the right to arbitrate by their

pre-arbitration conduct, including their earlier filing several lawsuits

against Plaintiffs.”

The parties have 15 days from the date of this order to explain why the

proposed order on rehearing should not be entered. The explanation from each

party must not exceed 12 pages.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ J. L. Edmondson

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

 Honorable Orinda Evans, United States District Judge for the Northern District of *

Georgia, sitting by designation.

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6173

KEITH PRINCETON BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MITCH FRANKS, Assistant Warden; UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS, sued in their individual and official

capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA99-238-CCB)

Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 28, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Princeton Brown, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney

General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

December 20, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on December 21, 1999. It is the date

the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 58 and 79(a); Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.

1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Keith P. Brown appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed under the Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA) and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. As to the § 1983 claim, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Brown v. Franks, No. CA-99-238-CCB

(D. Md. Dec. 21, 1999).* To the extent that Brown appeals the

court’s ruling on the ADA claim, we decline to address this claim

because Brown has failed to raise the issue in his informal brief.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 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.

AFFIRMED
§ 228.205 Access to electronic records. ( a ) FRA inspectors and State inspectors participating under 49 CFR Part 212 must have access to hours of service records created and maintained electronically that is obtained as required by § 228.9(b)(4).
( b ) Railroads must establish and comply with procedures for providing an FRA inspector or participating State inspector with an identification number and temporary password for access to the system upon request, which access will be valid for a period not to exceed seven days. Access to the system must be provided as soon as possible and no later than 24 hours after a request for access.
( c ) The inspection screen provided to FRA inspectors and participating State inspectors for searching employee hours of duty records must be formatted so that— ( 1 ) Each data field entered by an employee on the input screen is visible to the FRA inspector or participating State inspector; and
( 2 ) The data fields are searchable as described in § 228.203(d) and yield access to all records matching criteria specified in a search.
( 3 ) Records are displayed in a manner that is both crew-based and duty tour oriented, so that the data pertaining to all employees who worked together as part of a crew or signal gang will be displayed together, and the record will include all of the assignments and activities of a given duty tour that are required to be recorded by this part.