alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 70954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22620]


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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Procurement List; Proposed Deletions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to deletes service(s) that were 
previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are 
blind or have other severe disabilities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before: November 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information or to submit 
comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or 
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3f0fee7f6f5d6d7e1d6d4f3f2d1dadfdac7cafcddd69dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f1b2bca5b4b79495a39496b1b093989d988588be9f94df969e87">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide 
interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed 
actions.

Deletions

    The following service(s) are proposed for deletion from the 
Procurement List:

Service(s)

Service Type: Grounds Maintenance
Mandatory for: NOAA, National Weather Service Forecast Office, 
Charleston, WV; 400 Parkway Road: Charleston, WV
Mandatory Source of Supply: Goodwill Industries of Kanawha Valley, 
Charleston, WV
Contracting Activity: NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 
ADMINISTRATION, DEPT OF COMMERCE NOAA
Service Type: Laundry Service
Mandatory for: US Air Force, Youngstown Municipal Airport, 910th 
Airlift Wing, Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Vienna, OH, 3976 King 
Graves Road, Vienna, OH
Mandatory Source of Supply: Hancock County Sheltered Workshop, Inc., 
Weirton, WV
Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE AIR FORCE, FA6656 910 AW LGC 
YNGSTN WRN ARPT

Michael R. Jurkowski,
Acting Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2023-22620 Filed 10-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-2196

In Re: OKANG KAREEM ROCHELLE, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:05-cr-00112-WO-1) 

Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 1, 2009 

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Okang Kareem Rochelle, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Okang Kareem Rochelle petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order directing release pending sentencing or a 

status conference in the district court, and for the appointment 

of a special judge to “preside over litigation who would ensure 

that [his] rights governed by a fair and public hearing or trial 

[are] respected and protected.” Pet. for Writ of Mandamus at 2. 

We conclude that Rochelle is not entitled to mandamus relief. 

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner 

has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. 

& Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, 

mandamus is not a substitute for a direct appeal; it is a 

drastic remedy that should only be used in extraordinary 

circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 

402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). 

Rochelle fails to demonstrate extraordinary 

circumstances or that his rights cannot be fully protected 

through the established appellate process. Accordingly, 

although we grant leave to proceed informa pauperis, we deny the 

petition for writ of mandamus. 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
-80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

05/30

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■ ■

★ ■ ■ ■ ■

● ★

●

●

●

★ ●

● ●

●
No. 65257.

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/661, etc. (Galveston).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

IVAN KWONG,

Defendant. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-248M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

Count 1: Unlawful Importation of MDMA in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a),

960(a)(1), and 960(b)(3).

Count 2: Possession with Intent to Distribute Ecstacy in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C).

Date of Detention Hearing: May 25, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth,

finds the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), there is a rebuttable presumption that

defendant is a flight risk and a danger to the community based on the nature of the pending

charges. Application of presumption is appropriate in this case.

(2) Defendant is a native and citizen of Canada.

(3) Defendant has no ties to this community or to the Western District of

Case 2:06-cr-00208-MJP Document 13 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

Washington.

(4) Defendant has a prior conviction in Canada of a similar nature as the instant

alleged offense charged.

(5) Defendant’s alleged offense involves amounts of substantial deliveries of

MDMA.

(6) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than

detention that will address the risk of flight and the danger to other persons of the community

posed by defendant.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the

extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in

custody pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation

with counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which

defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal

for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United

States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00208-MJP Document 13 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 284 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 284

     Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should 
renegotiate the Extradition Treaty Between the Untied States of America 
                     and the United Mexican States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 2, 1998

 Mr. Torricelli submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should 
renegotiate the Extradition Treaty Between the Untied States of America 
                     and the United Mexican States.

Whereas under the Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and 
        the United Mexican States, Mexico refused to extradite murder suspect 
        and U.S. citizen Jose Luis Del Toro to the United States until the State 
        of Florida agreed not to exercise its right to seek capital punishment 
        in its criminal prosecution of him;
Whereas under the Extradition Treaty Mexico has refused to extradite other 
        suspects of capital crimes; and
Whereas the Extradition Treaty interferes with the justice system of the United 
        States and encourages criminals to flee to Mexico: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. SENSES OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE RENEGOTIATION OF THE 
              U.S.-MEXICAN EXTRADITION TREATY.

    It is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) the President should renegotiate the Extradition Treaty 
        Between the United States of America and the United Mexican 
        States, signed in Mexico City in 1978 (312 U.S.T. 5059), so 
        that the possibility of capital punishment will not interfere 
        with the timely extradition of criminal suspects from Mexico to 
        the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Case 3:06-cv-05352-RJB Document 13 Filed 10/10/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-05352-RJB Document 13 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Staff Sergeant NEIL C. MACDONALD

United States Air Force

ACM 38491

16 June 2014

Sentence adjudged 25 September 2013 by G CM convened at Joint Base

Andrews, Maryland . Military Judge: Christopher A. Santoro (sitting

alone).

Approved S entence: Bad

- conduct discharge

.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Captain Jeffrey A. Davis

.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Don M. Christensen

.

Before

HECKER, MITCHELL, and WEBER

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release

.



### PER CURIAM :

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occ urred. Article 66(c),

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed , 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000).

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40976

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ROBERTO ARDON, also known

as Miguel Angel Ortiz-Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-03-CR-204-1

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

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Roberto Ardon appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ardon

complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that

the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Ardon thus

contends that his sentence should not exceed the maximum terms of
No. 03-40976

-2-

imprisonment and supervised release prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Ardon acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.1
                                 AMENDMENT NO. 4
                                     TO THE
                      H&R BLOCK DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
                     FOR EXECUTIVES, AS AMENDED AND RESTATED

         H&R Block, Inc. (the "Company") adopted the H&R Block Deferred
Compensation Plan for Executives, as Amended and Restated (the "Plan"),
effective as of January 1, 1999. The Company amended said Plan by Amendment No.
1 effective as of January 1, 1999, by Amendment No. 2 effective as of January 1,
2000, and by Amendment No. 3 effective as of September 8, 1999. The Company
continues to retain the right to amend the Plan pursuant to action by the
Company's Board of Directors. The Company hereby exercises that right. This
Amendment No. 4 is effective as of December 31, 1999.

                                    AMENDMENT

         1. Section 4.1.2 of the Plan, as previously amended, is further amended
by (a) adding the following words and punctuation after the words and
punctuation "provided, however, that" and before the words "the maximum
percentage" in the first paragraph of said Section:

         "(i) each participating Affiliate may elect before an Enrollment Period
         to have no Matching Contributions posted during the Plan Year (to which
         the enrollment period relates) to the Accounts of Participants employed
         by such Participating Affiliate, but such election is irrevocable and
         will automatically apply to all future Plan Years., and (ii)";

and (b) deleting the final sentence of the first paragraph of said Section.

         2. Except as modified in this Amendment No. 4, the Plan shall remain in
full force and effect, including the Company's right to amend or terminate the
Plan as set forth in Article 9 of the Plan.


                                               H&R BLOCK, INC.


                                               By:  /s/ Frank L. Salizzoni
                                                    ----------------------------


                                               Its: Chief Executive Officer
                                                    ----------------------------
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

TAMARA LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREGORY FISHER, D.D.S., and

KATHLEEN ANN STOCKMAN, husband

and wife, and GREGORY R. FISHER, DDS

EMPLOYEE BENEFIT AND WELFARE

PLAN, 

Defendants,

GREGORY FISHER, D.D.S., and

KATHLEEN ANN STOCKMAN, husband

and wife, and GREGORY R. FISHER, DDS

EMPLOYEE BENEFIT AND WELFARE

PLAN,

 Cross Claimant,

v.

REGENCE BLUESHIELD, a Washington

non-profit corporation

 Defendant.

Case No. C06-5352RJB

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of CR 39.1 Mediator. 

Dkt. 68. The Court has considered the documents filed regarding this motion and the file herein. 

On July 17, 2007, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for appointment of a Local Federal Civil Rule

Case 3:06-cv-05352-RJB Document 73 Filed 07/27/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

39.1 Mediator. Plaintiff has attached the declaration of Kathleen E. Pierce who indicates that parties are

unable to agree a mediator. Dkt. 69. She states that Plaintiff cannot afford to appoint a mediator. Id. 

Pursuant to Local Fed. R. Civ. P. 39.1(c)(3) the Court appoints Perrin Walker as mediator in this

matter. Mr. Walker’s phone number is: 253-383-3791. His address is: 1201 Pacific Avenue, Tacoma,

Washington, 98401. 

Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against

Defendants Fisher and the Plan, and Defendants Fisher and the Plan’s Cross Motion for Summary

Judgment against Plaintiff, both noted for consideration for July 26, 2007. Dkts. 47 and 49. Defendants

Fisher and the Plan also have a cross claim against Regence Blueshield that is still pending. Dkt. 71. A

decision on the summary judgment motion should be issued on or before August 16, 2007. Trial is

scheduled to begin on September 4, 2007. Dkt. 11. Pursuant to Local Fed. R. Civ. P. 39.1 all parties are

expected to attend the mediation. Parties may wish to schedule the mediation after the decision on the

Motions for Summary Judgment have been decided. In any event, the 39.1 settlement report due date is

reset for August 24, 2007. All other deadlines remain. 

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of CR 39.1 Mediator (Dkt. 68) is GRANTED; Mr.

Perrin Walker is appointed mediator in this matter; 

(2) The Local Fed. Civ. R. 39.1 Settlement Report due date is RESET for August 24, 2007;

and 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to

any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 

DATED this 27th day of July, 2007.

 ARobert J Bryan

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05352-RJB Document 73 Filed 07/27/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 3

Case 3:06-cv-05352-RJB Document 73 Filed 07/27/07 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 31
                                  ----------


                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------


I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of CWALT, Inc.,
Alternative Loan Trust 2005-30CB;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required
to be provided to the trustee by the master servicer under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included
in these reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the master
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon
my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement,
and except as disclosed in the reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its
obligations under that agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the master
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review
in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York, as
Trustee.


Date: March 30, 2006


                               /s/ Steve Bailey
                               ----------------
                               Steve Bailey
                               Senior Managing Director
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LUCINDA WYNN,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-0242 JLR

ORDER RE:

ALLEGATIONS OF

VIOLATION OF

CONDITIONS OF

APPEARANCE BOND

THIS MATTER comes on for an initial hearing on the Petition of the United States Pretrial

Services Office alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision by using cocaine

on July 12, 2006 and July 17, 2006.

The plaintiff appears through Assistant United States Attorney, MATTHEW THOMAS.

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, KIMBERLY GORDON

The defendant having been advised of the allegations, her right to a hearing, and the maximum

consequence of being found in violation of her Appearance Bond, enters admissions to both alleged

violations regarding the use of cocaine..

ACCORDINGLY, the court hereby revokes the defendant’s appearance bond and directs that

she be detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or the

community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered by the court for

further proceedings.

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Pretrial Services Office.

July 21, 2006.

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold ______________ J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00242-JLR Document 28 Filed 07/21/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 55716.

protests 50874-K, etc. (Minneapolis).

#### The Dayton Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.