alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66177-66178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32814]


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

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY


U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy Meeting

AGENCY: United States Information Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy will meet on 
December 17 in Room 600, 301 4th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., from 
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
    The Commission will meet with the Honorable Joseph Duffey, 
Director, U.S. Information Agency, and the Honorable Penn Kemble, 
Deputy Director, U.S. Information Agency, to discuss legislation, 
budget, and reorganization matters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Please call Betty Hayes, (202) 619-4468, if 
you are interested in attending the meeting. Space is limited and 
entrance to the building is controlled.


[[Page 66178]]


    Dated: December 11, 1997.
Rose Royal,
Management Analyst, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 97-32814 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate~** 

# (!Courtof**~peaI1i** 

# fortbejfeberaI(!Circuit

LOUIS KERLINSKY,

Claimant-Appellant, 

### v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee.

2012-7118 Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in case no. 09-1934, Judge Frank Q. Nebeker. 

### ON MOTION Before PROST, MAYER, and REYNA, 

### Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 

### ORDER Louis Kerlinsky moves for reconsideration of this court's August 13, 2012 order in part dismissing his appeal as untimely and in part summarily affirming theLOUIS KERLINSKY V. SHINSEKI 2 judgment ofthe United States Court ofAppeals for Veterans Claims. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motion is denied. FOR THE COURT /s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s26
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                       UT
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,663,918
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    320,468
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         547,512
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        97,022
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,628,920
<COMMON>                                       462,777 <F1>
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                         (573)<F2>
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            316,930
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 779,134
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     95,328
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           646,845
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             173,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   16,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 918,613
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,628,920
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,374,680
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            44,294
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,199,123 <F3>
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,243,417
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        131,263
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               5,389
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 136,652
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        47,511
<NET-INCOME>                                    89,141
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      6,311
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   82,830
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        72,253
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       41,259
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         169,082
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.51
<FN>
<F1>Includes common stock expense of $928.
<F2>Represents unrealized loss on marketable securities,
    net of taxes.
<F3>Includes equity in earnings of affiliates of
    $28,158.
</FN>
        




























</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-07-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-19-1997
<CASH>                                             603
<SECURITIES>                                    11,416
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,794
<ALLOWANCES>                                       536
<INVENTORY>                                     18,555
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,497
<PP&E>                                         235,789
<DEPRECIATION>                                 106,530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 242,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,656
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         6,934
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,698
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   242,389
<SALES>                                        138,668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               138,668
<CGS>                                           24,354
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,630)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       603
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,027)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,027)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.09)
        









</TABLE>
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Dennis Lee SHINDLE, Appellee.

No. 73-1439.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 19, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; Tom Waddell, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-17-00315-CR 

OSCAR LONGORIA, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 137th District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2013-438,023, Honorable John J. “Trey” McClendon III, Presiding 

 

October 16, 2017 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ. 

Appellant, Oscar Longoria, was convicted of manslaughter1and sentenced to 

seven years imprisonment. Because his notice of appeal was filed untimely, we dismiss 

the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The timely filing of a written notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to 

hearing an appeal. Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). In a 

criminal case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is 

 

1

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.04 (West 2011).
2

imposed or within ninety days after sentence is imposed if the defendant timely files a 

motion for new trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). A motion for new trial must be filed 

within thirty days after sentenced is imposed. See id. at 21.4(a). We may extend the 

deadline to file a notice of appeal if, within fifteen days of the deadline, the appellant 

files a notice of appeal and a motion for extension. See id. at 26.3. If a notice of appeal 

is not timely filed, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

Castillo, 369 S.W.3d at 198. We have no authority to invoke Appellate Rule 2 to 

enlarge the time in which to file a notice of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 2; Slaton v. State, 

981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

Appellant was sentenced on May 23, 2017. His notice of appeal or motion for 

new trial was, therefore, due within thirty days, by June 22. On June 26, appellant filed 

a motion for new trial. As the motion for new trial was not timely filed, the notice of 

appeal deadline was not extended to ninety days after sentence was imposed. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2). On August 24, appellant filed a notice of appeal, over ninety 

days after his sentence was imposed. See id. at 26.2(a)(1), 26.3. By letter dated 

August 29, this Court notified appellant’s counsel that the notice of appeal appeared to 

have been filed untimely and directed appellant to show why the Court has jurisdiction

by September 8. We extended the response deadline, sua sponte, to October 5. 

However, no response has been filed to date.
3

Because appellant’s untimely filed notice of appeal prevents this Court from 

acquiring jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.2

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

 

2

Appellant may be entitled to relief by filing a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to 

the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of an out-of-time appeal. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jose Guadalupe AREVALO, Appellant.

No. 02-1358.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 28, 2002.

Filed Aug. 30, 2002.

Before LOKEN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jose Guadalupe Arevalo pled guilty to conspiring to distribute in excess of 5 kilograms of cocaine and in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A), and to two counts of aiding and abetting the distribution of a mixture or substance containing cocaine (4 kilograms as to one count and 3 kilograms as to the other), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. At sentencing, the district court1 rejected Arevalo’s argument that sections 841(b)(1)(A) and (B) were facially unconstitutional under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and sentenced Arevalo to 10 years imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. Arevalo appeals, renewing his constitutional argument. We affirm.

*72Arevalo’s argument is foreclosed by our recent decisions upholding the facial constitutionality of § 841(b)(1)(A) and (B) after *Apprendi, see United States v. Sprof-era,*No. 01-3674, 2002 WL 1726817, at *3 (8th Cir. July 26, 2002); *United States v. Carter,*294 F.3d 978, 980-81 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam), and further, the Supreme Court has now held that judges do not violate *Apprendi*in resolving factors that increase the statutory minimum sentence. *See Harris v. United States,*— U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 2414,153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002).2

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2

. Arevalo also argues that our reasoning in *United States v. Aguayo-Delgado,*220 F.3d 926, 934 (8th Cir.), *cert, denied,*531 U.S. 1026, 121 S.Ct. 600, 148 L.Ed.2d 513 (2000), is faulty, but only this court en banc may revisit the case. *See United States v. Wright, 22*F.3d 787, 788 (8th Cir. 1994).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

In the Matter of ) a Member of the Bar ) of the Supreme Court ) No. 640, 2014 of the State of Delaware: ) ) CHRISTOPHER D. TEASE, ) Petitioner. ) Submitted: November 19, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014

Before STRINE , Chief Justice, HOLLAND , and VALIHURA , Justices.

ORDER This 20th day of November 2014, it appears to the Court that Christopher Tease, Esquire, has filed a petition requesting to be transferred to disability inactive status. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel does no t oppose the petition. According to the unopposed petition, Tease currently is suffe ring mental or physical incapacity which prevents him from both the practice of law an d the ability to assist in his defense of pending matters. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Tease shall imm ediately be transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Rule 19(b) of the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. The pending disciplinary m atters are stayed. The ODC may publicize Tease’s transfer to disability inactive s tatus under Rule 19(d).

BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo. E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice
Exhibit 32



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 Quarterly Report of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Cheryl W. Grisé, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, and John H. Forsgren, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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 result of operations of the registrant.



/s/ Cheryl W. Grisé

(Signature)

Cheryl W. Grisé

Chief Executive Officer



/s/ John H. Forsgren

(Signature)

John H. Forsgren

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



November 5, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CARLOS RAMOS-SANCHEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-50026

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-02986-GT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Gordon Thompson, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 23, 2014** 

Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Ramos-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 14-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ramos-Sanchez first contends that the district court erred by failing to (i)

FILED

OCT 1 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
independently calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range, (ii) consider the

applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, other than deterrence, and (iii)

explain adequately the sentence imposed. We disagree. The record reflects that

the district court adopted the correctly-calculated Guidelines range provided by the

probation officer, adequately considered the applicable section 3553(a) sentencing

factors, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520

F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Ramos-Sanchez also contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing RamosSanchez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 14-

month consecutive sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of

the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors. See U.S.S.G.

§ 7B1.3(f); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50026
EXHIBIT      32.0

| (1)   | The                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended July 21, 2007                (the                “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The                information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all                material                respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of                the                Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                               |   |   |                                                                         |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/Renato                Cataldo                   |   |   | /s/Gary                W. Douglass                                           |   |
| Renato                Cataldo                      |   |   | Gary                W. Douglass                                              |   |
| President              and Chief Executive Officer |   |   | Executive                Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer |   |
# Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA

- 2016

- 5044

Directorate Identifier: 2014NM166AD

8

- 24

- 92

--- 9/25/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the

Supplemental AD Docket



### MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
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 Quarterly Report of Preferred Financial Resources, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Roger Sherman, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (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 result of operations of the
Company.


March 18, 2004

Roger W. Sherman
----------------------------
Roger W. Sherman, President
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2535 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2535

 To prohibit Federal funds from being used to violate the terms of the 
          Flores settlement agreement, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2021

Mr. Takano (for himself, Mr. Vargas, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Mr. Meeks, 
   Ms. Chu, and Mr. Suozzi) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit Federal funds from being used to violate the terms of the 
          Flores settlement agreement, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Flores Agreement Act''.

SEC. 2. FLORES SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

    No Federal funds may be used to violate the terms of the stipulated 
settlement agreement filed on January 17, 1997, in the United States 
District Court for the Central District of California in Flores v. 
Reno, CV 85-4544-RJK (commonly known as the ``Flores settlement 
agreement'').
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6955

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. YAYAH TALIB , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Big Stone Gap

. James P. Jones , Senior District Judge. ( 2:07

- cr - 00003

- JPJ

- 1 )

Submitted : January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Yayah T a lib, Appellant Pro Se. Whitney Demain Pierce, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are n ot binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6955 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Yayah Talib appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Talib’s motion. See United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (per curiam) (stating standard of review), cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Talib , No. 2:07

- cr - 00003

- JPJ

- 1 ( W .D. Va. Aug. 9 , 2022). We deny Talib’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6955 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2