alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29427]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; Meeting

AGENCY: Advisory Committee to the National Center for State, Local, and 
International Law Enforcement Training.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The agenda for this meeting includes remarks by Charles 
Rinkevich, Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 
(FLETC); Elizabeth Bresee and Laurie Robinson, Committee Co-chairs; and 
presentations regarding the Small Town and Rural Training Series 
(STAR); Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program; Domestic 
Violence Training Program; Interagency Agreement with Bureau of Justice 
Assistance (BJA); and an update on Treasury initiative regarding the 
Guns Tracking Program. Presentations regarding international programs 
will include the International Law Enforcement Academy in Central 
America (ILEA-South); recent Agreements and Memorandums of 
Understanding with DOS; and an update on the Russian initiative. There 
will also be an update on the Leadership Development Program.

DATES: November 19, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Artesia, New Mexico.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hobart M. Henson, Director, National Center for State, Local, and 
International Law Enforcement Training, Federal Law Enforcement 
Training Center, Glynco, Georgia 31524, 1-800-743-5382.

    Dated: October 29, 1997.
Steve Kernes,
Acting Director, National Center for State, Local, and International 
Law Enforcement Training.
[FR Doc. 97-29427 Filed 11-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-32-M
#### Douglas B. HAISLIP, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-235.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 30, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1714 

To require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report 

evaluating the process used by the Federal Communications Commission 

for establishing, reviewing, and updating upload and download broadband 

internet access speed thresholds, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2021 

Ms. SPANBERGER (for herself and Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Comptroller General of the United States 

to submit a report evaluating the process used by the 

Federal Communications Commission for establishing, 

reviewing, and updating upload and download broadband 

internet access speed thresholds, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Speedy Updates Act 

5 of 2021’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1714 IH

1 SEC. 2. GAO REPORT. 

2 Not later than one year after the date of the enact3 ment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 

4 States shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Com5 merce of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

6 Agriculture of the House of Representatives, the Com7 mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 

8 of the Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, 

9 Science, and Transportation of the Senate, the Committee 

10 on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and the 

11 Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 

12 Senate, a report that evaluates the process used by the 

13 Commission for establishing, reviewing, and updating the 

14 upload and download broadband internet access speed 

15 thresholds, including— 

16 (1) how the Commission reviews and updates 

17 broadband internet access speed thresholds; 

18 (2) whether the Commission considers future 

19 broadband internet access speed needs when estab20 lishing broadband internet access speed thresholds, 

21 including whether the Commission considers the 

22 need, or the anticipated need, for higher upload or 

23 download broadband internet access speeds in the 

24 five-year period and the ten-year period after the 

25 date on which a broadband speed threshold is to be 

26 established; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1714 IH

1 (3) how the Commission considers the impacts 

2 of changing uses of the internet in establishing, re3 viewing, or updating broadband internet access 

4 speed thresholds, including— 

5 (A) the proliferation of internet-based busi6 ness; 

7 (B) working remotely and running a busi8 ness from home; 

9 (C) video teleconferencing; 

10 (D) distance learning; 

11 (E) in-house web hosting; and 

12 (F) cloud data storage. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             460
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    30010
<ALLOWANCES>                                       465
<INVENTORY>                                       4279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 39684
<PP&E>                                            8617
<DEPRECIATION>                                     595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   50310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            21372
<BONDS>                                          19638
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          4026
<OTHER-SE>                                        4122
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     50310
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 49684
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    39423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  7778
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1671
<INCOME-TAX>                                       646
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1025
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1025
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18


</TABLE>
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

XY, LLC, Appellant

v.

ABS GLOBAL, INC., GE NUS PLC, Appellees

______________________

2016

- 2228

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014

- 01550.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

K IRT S. O'N EILL , Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP, San Antonio, TX, argued for appellant. Also repr esented by D ANIEL L YNN M OFFETT ; R EHAN M. S AFIULLAH

, Houston, TX.

C ONSTANTINE L. T RELA

, J R
., Sidley Austin LLP, Ch icago, IL, argued for appellees. Also represented by
S TEVEN J. H OROWITZ

.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN

, D YK
, and C HEN
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

May 23, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

**FORM N-PX**

**ANNUAL REPORT OF PROXY VOTING RECORD OF**

**DWS Short Term Bond Fund**

**A Series of DWS Funds Trust**

Investment Company Act file number  811-3229

DWS Funds Trust

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

 

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY  10154

(Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip code)

John Millette

Secretary

One Beacon Street

Boston, MA  02108-3106

(Name and address of agent for service)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:  617-295-1000

Date of fiscal year end:  12/31

Date of reporting period:  7/1/08-6/30/09

Form N-PX is to be used by a registered management investment company, other than a small business investment company registered on Form N-5 (§§ 239.24 and 274.5 of this chapter), to file reports with the Commission, not later than August 31 of each year, containing the registrant's proxy voting record for the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30, pursuant to section 30 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and rule 30b1-4 thereunder (17 CFR 270.30b1-4). The Commission may use the information provided on Form N-PX in its regulatory, disclosure review, inspection, and policymaking roles.

A registrant is required to disclose the information specified by Form N-PX, and the Commission will make this information public. A registrant is not required to respond to the collection of information contained in Form N-PX unless the Form displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") control number. Please direct comments concerning the accuracy of the information collection burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing the burden to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. The OMB has reviewed this collection of information under the clearance requirements of 44 U.S.C. § 3507.

 
```

******************************* FORM N-Px REPORT *******************************

ICA File Number: 811-03229
Reporting Period: 07/01/2008 - 06/30/2009
DWS Funds Trust

========================= A   DWS SHORT TERM BOND FUND =========================

There is no proxy  voting  activity  for the fund,  as the fund did not hold any
votable positions during the reporting period.

========== END NPX REPORT
```

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACK NORMAN RUKES,

 Defendant - Appellee,

 v.

MARTIN FRINK; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

MONTANA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant.

No. 14-35492

D.C. No. 9:13-cv-116-M-JCL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Jeremiah C. Lynch, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 6, 2015

Portland, Oregon

Before: PREGERSON, N.R. SMITH, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Montana appeals the district court’s May 23 and September 29, 2014 orders

granting Rukes’s petition for habeas relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1291 and 2253. We reverse and remand. 

FILED

AUG 12 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Montana agrees that the comment made by the bailiff in the presence of the

jury as they were about to commence deliberations constituted error and that the

state court’s decision concerning the issue was unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d). Therefore, we must solely determine whether the district court erred by

concluding that the error was not harmless. On habeas review, when considering

whether an improper comment made to the jury was harmless, the court applies the

standard from Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993). 

Rukes argues that the mere presence of a plain-clothed guard sitting behind

Rukes in the courtroom was prejudicial and that the surprise that the jurors must

have experienced when they discovered (right before entering the jury room to

deliberate) that Rukes was in fact being guarded, prejudiced the jury. However, to

support a finding that the error was harmful, actual prejudice must be shown. 

Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2197-98 (2015). We note that the Supreme Court

handed down Davis nine months after the district court’s final order in this case.

Rukes offers no evidence that he was actually prejudiced by the bailiff’s

improper comment. As evidenced by its acquittal of Rukes on two of the four

charges, the jury engaged in meaningful deliberations. The jury was presented

with substantial evidence that Rukes had committed the charged offenses and made

a reasonable decision based on that evidence. Therefore, as there is a lack

2
evidence of actual prejudice, we must conclude that the district court erred by

granting Rukes’s petition for habeas relief.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROGELIO SARMIENTO-HERNANDEZ,

AKA Perdo Verdier, 

Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-71988

Agency No. A206-784-435

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 8, 2021** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and CALDWELL,*** District

Judge.

 

FILED

JUL 12 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Karen K. Caldwell, United States District Judge for

the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
Rogelio Sarmiento-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review

of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of

an Immigration Judge (IJ) to deny his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we grant the petition for review in

part. 

The BIA erred by failing to address Sarmiento’s argument that he was

eligible for asylum and withholding of removal because he has a well-founded fear

of persecution from private actors in Mexican mental institutions whom the

Mexican government was unable or unwilling to control. See Rahimzadeh v.

Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010). Because “IJs and the BIA are not free

to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner,” the agency must address this argument

on remand. See Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007)

(quoting Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005)). 

The BIA’s determination that Sarmiento did not establish a well-founded

fear of future persecution at the hands of the Mexican authorities is supported by

substantial evidence.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that

Sarmiento is not eligible for CAT relief because he did not establish that it is more

2
likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a public

official upon return to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Duran-Rodriguez v.

Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019). The country conditions reports do not

demonstrate that Sarmiento is personally at risk of future torture or that any

Mexican official had the specific intent to inflict suffering upon patients with

chronic mental health issues required to establish an entitlement to relief under

CAT. See Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2014); Acevedo Granados

v. Garland, 992 F.3d 755, 765 (9th Cir. 2021). Sarmiento failed to point to any

other evidence in the record to support his claim. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d

785, 792 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITION GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

1

1

 Costs shall be taxed against the respondent. 

3
Exhibit



Exhibit 4.2














The Corporation shall furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests a statement of the powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock of the Corporation or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. Such requests shall be made to the Corporation’s Secretary at the principal office of the Corporation.


KEEP THIS CERTIFICATE IN A SAFE PLACE. IF IT IS LOST, STOLEN,OR DESTROYED THE CORPORATION WILL REQUIRE A BOND INDEMNITY AS A CONDITION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATE.


The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable
laws or regulations:
	
							
	TEN COM    –  as tenants in common
	 
	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT –
	 
	Custodian
	 

	TEN ENT      –  as tenants by the entireties
	 
	 
	(Cust)
	 
	  (Minor)

	JT TEN         –   as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common
	 
	 
	under Uniform Gifts to Minors

	COM PROP –  as community property
	 
	 
	Act
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 (State)
	 

	 
	 
	UNIF TRF MIN ACT –
	 
	Custodian (until age
	 
	)

	 
	 
	 
	(Cust)
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 under Uniform Transfers

	 
	 
	 
	(Minor)
	 

	 
	 
	 
	to Minors Act.
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	(State)

	Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.






	
			
	FOR VALUE RECEIVED,
	 
	hereby sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto










	
	
	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
 IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE

	 








	
				
	 

	(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 
	shares

	of the capital stock represented by within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint


	 

	 
	attorney-in-fact

	to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of the substitution in the premises.
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	Dated
	 
	 
	 






	
					
	 
	X
	 

	 
	X
	 

	Signature(s) Guaranteed:
	 
	NOTICE:
	 
	THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.






	
		
	By
	 

	 
	THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION, (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, 
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE
GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15. GUARANTEES BY A NOTARY PUBLIC ARE NOT
 ACCEPTABLE. SIGNATURE GUARANTEES MUST NOT BE DATED.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 3 0 , 2023

NO. 03

- 21

- 00360

- CV

World Class Capital Group, LLC; World Class Acquisitions, LLC; and Manfred Sternberg , Appellant s

v.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP , Appellee

APPE A L FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the order s signed by the tr i a l court on July 8, 2021 ; November 18, 2 021;

and February 1, 2022

. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds

that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s order s

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the tr ial

court’s order s

. The appellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in

the court below.
#### Henry LAVADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-338.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 12, 1971.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Warren H. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
#### R. B. WEAVER and Essie M. Weaver, his wife, et al., Petitioners, v. Floyd A. BRIDGES and Nancy C. Bridges, husband and wife, et al., Respondents.

No. 40892.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 21, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 244 So.2d 191.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1983-1984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00620]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee--Public 
Teleconference

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee 
Teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a 
teleconference of the Commercial Space Transportation

[[Page 1984]]

Advisory Committee (COMSTAC). The Teleconference will take place on 
Wednesday, January 27, 2016 starting at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time 
and will last approximately one hour. The agenda and call-in number 
will be posted at least one week in advance at http://www.faa.gov/go/ast.
    The purpose of this teleconference is to review the International 
Space Policy Working Group findings and recommendations regarding a 
potential modification of current U.S. policy on the launching of U.S. 
technology on Indian launch vehicles.
    Interested members of the public may submit relevant written 
statements for the COMSTAC members to consider under the advisory 
process. Statements may concern the issues and agenda items mentioned 
above and/or additional issues that may be relevant for the U.S. 
commercial space transportation industry. Interested parties wishing to 
submit written statements should contact Michael Beavin, COMSTAC 
Executive Director, (the Contact Person listed below) in writing (mail 
or email) by January 22, 2016, so that the information can be made 
available to COMSTAC members for their review and consideration before 
the January 27 teleconference. Written statements should be supplied in 
the following formats: One hard copy with original signature and/or one 
electronic copy via email.
    An agenda will be posted on the FAA Web site at www.faa.gov/go/ast.
    Individuals who plan to participate and need special assistance 
should inform the Contact Persons listed below in advance of the 
meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Michael Beavin, telephone (202) 267-
9051; email Michael.beavin@faa.gov, FAA Office of Commercial Space 
Transportation (AST-3), 800 Independence Avenue SW., Room 331, 
Washington, DC 20591.
    Complete information regarding COMSTAC is available on the FAA Web 
site at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/.

     Issued in Washington, DC, January 8, 2016.
George C. Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2016-00620 Filed 1-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
No. 00-7154.

#### Wells *v.*Florida et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### STATE of Florida v. Robert J. DARNELL.

No. 38283.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion.