alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4828]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notices have been accepted for 
processing, they will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later 
than March 19, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Mr. O. H. Deshotels, Jr., Kaplan, Louisiana; to acquire an 
additional 2.9 percent, for a total of 12.6 percent, of the voting 
shares of Coastal Commerce Bancshares, Inc., Kaplan, Louisiana, and 
thereby indirectly acquire Kaplan State Bank, Kaplan, Louisiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 21, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-4828 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### Samuel CANTOR, Appellant, v. Jayne Ethel McPHERSON, Appellee.

No. 70-89.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 30, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; John H. Moore, II, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
DENY; and Opinion Filed June 30, 2015 . 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 15
- 00771
- CV IN RE ROBERT C. LOWR Y, M.D. , Relator Original Proceeding from the 116th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 14
- 01187 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Evans, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Lang

- Miers Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting the Court ord er the trial court to set aside its orders finding relator in contempt of court and ordering him to pay attorney’s fees. Contempt orders that do not involve confinement may be reviewed by a petition for writ of mandamus. In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (T ex. 1999) (orig. proceeding). In an original proceeding challenging a contempt order, the relator has the burden to show that the order is void. See In re Aslam, 348 S.W.3d 299, 302 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2011, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Coppock, 277 S.W.3d 417, 418 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding)) . We conclude relator has failed to establish a right to mandamus relief. We deny the petition.

150771F.P05 /Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7795-7796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4138]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[UT-056-1430-01-24-1A]


Mountain Valley Management Framework Plan; Piute Co., UT

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent to amend plan.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice of Intent is to advise the public that the Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) intends to consider a proposal which would 
require amending an existing planning document.

DATES: The comment period for this proposed plan amendment will 
commence with publication of this notice. Comments must be submitted 
within the thirty day period commencing with the publication of this 
notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dave Henderson, Sevier River Resource Area Manager, 150 East 900 North, 
Richfield, Utah 84701. Existing

[[Page 7796]]

planning documents and information are available at the above address 
or telephone (801) 896-1500. Comments on the proposed plan amendment 
should be sent to the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM is proposing to amend the Mountain 
Valley Management Framework Plan which includes public lands in Piute 
County, Utah. The purpose of the amendment would be to identify certain 
lands as suitable for direct sale pursuant to Section 203 of the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The lands identified 
for direct sale comprise 560 acres described as follows: T. 29 S., R. 3 
W., Section 28, SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, E\1/2\NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, N\1/
2\SW\1/4\, SE\1/4\SW\1/4\, SE\1/4\ and Section 33, N\1/2\NE\1/4\ and 
Section 34, SW\1/4\SW\1/4\, Salt Lake Meridian, Utah.
    The existing plan does not identify these lands for disposal. 
However, because of the resource values and public values and 
objectives involved, the public interest may well be served by sale of 
these lands. An environmental assessment will be prepared by an 
interdisciplinary team to analyze the impacts of this proposal and 
alternatives.

    Dated: February 7, 1997.
G. William Lamb,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 97-4138 Filed 2-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P-M
#### Amerigo J. STELLA, Appellant, v. OCEAN MANOR OPERATING CORPORATION, etc., and Manor Operating Corporation, etc., Appellees.

No. 73-1347.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 11, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Jose A. Gonzalez, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
See TRADE COMMISSION NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

CASENAME FTC y, FILE/DOCKET NUMBER

Wig a y x . ETA
Crrrago bridge £ Mon Cenpany, Mel Dower 4300

>» Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission’s Rule of Practice, enter in the above proceeding
the appearance of .
Ae counsel or reprasentative for the respondent (Camplete items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below)

(3 counsal supporting the comptaint (Complete items 1, 3, 4, and 5 belaw)

- 1_-COUNSELOR REPRESENTATIVE. _ ~~. RESPONDENTS - _
lnciuds name, address and telaphone of each Include address and telephone numer Of OB persons, parinerships,
‘comparatiens, ar associations

Rhar BR. Katha % 2608
gGaesen L- Uhlematay x 2680

Cecelia MW. Woeldeck +3664
Micraed f- Frandnelx 43406

Hector Rut ¥36I8
PA adnoce, attorneys \ocaved

at 6d’ Pennsylwenia Aye, AW, |

Jenn A, Singer + 32a
Pu Singer i Necatadk oF

GH @ Peansylenia , Prc.,, WW,

3. ASSGCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

_Ridhad Lichesiinh

4. SIGNATURE OF SEWIOR COUNSEL §. DATE SIGNED
\
____ fe “bijor

Return this fo: H-159
Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washinaton. D.C. 20580
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7579

ISTIVAN CLEVONDON DOUGLAS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; M. L.

POLK, III,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-744-4)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Istivan Clevondon Douglas, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Istivan Clevondon Douglas seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny Douglas’ motion for summary

judgment, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Douglas v. Attorney Gen., No. CA-96-744-4 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 7,

1997). 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.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Veritas DGC Inc. (the “Company”) for theperiod ended October 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Mark E. Baldwin, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

1.     The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

2.     The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany as of the dates and for the periods presented as required by suchreport.

December 6, 2006
| /s/ MARK E. BALDWIN     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Mark E. Baldwin         |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

This certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Reportor “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.

1

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4005

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RAYMOND LAMONT WATLINGTON, a/k/a Lamont

Watlington,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-04-141)

Submitted: June 17, 2005 Decided: July 18, 2005

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L.

Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Lamont Watlington pled guilty to attempted bank

robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). Watlington

was sentenced to 55 months’ imprisonment, followed by five years’

supervised release. Watlington appeals his sentence, arguing the

district court erred in applying the federal sentencing guidelines

as mandatory in violation of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.

738 (2005). 

In Booker, the Supreme Court held that the mandatory

manner in which the federal sentencing guidelines required courts

to impose sentencing enhancements based on facts found by the court

by a preponderance of the evidence violated the Sixth Amendment.

125 S. Ct. at 746, 750. The Court remedied the constitutional

violation by severing two statutory provisions, 18 U.S.C.A.

§§ 3553(b)(1), 3742(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), thereby making the

guidelines advisory. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,

546 (4th Cir. 2005).

Watlington does not challenge any enhancements to his

sentence, so we need not consider whether his sentence violates his

Sixth Amendment rights. Under Booker, in reviewing sentences that

do not involve a Sixth Amendment violation, this court applies the

plain error and harmless error doctrines in determining whether

resentencing is required. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 769; see Fed. R.

Crim. P. 52(a) (appellate court may disregard any error that does
- 3 -

not affect substantial rights). The harmless error standard

permits an error at sentencing to be disregarded if the reviewing

court is certain that any such error “did not affect the district

court’s selection of the sentence imposed.” Williams v. United

States, 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992). Here, because the district court

imposed an alternate discretionary sentence that was identical to

the guideline sentence, the error inherent in the application of

the guidelines as mandatory did not affect the court’s ultimate

determination of the sentence nor Watlington’s substantial rights.

Accordingly, we affirm Watlington’s conviction and

sentence. 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
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Darlene ROBERTSON.

No. 60697.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 28, 1977.

In re: Darlene Robertson applying for writs of review and stay order.

*893Writ and stay order denied. Inadequate showing for supervisory review at this stage. The accused has an adequate remedy by review in the event of conviction,
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

December 12, 2017

The Honorable Paul D. Ryan
Speaker

U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

I am writing to notify you, as required under 5 U.S.C. § 8438(h)(2), of my determination that, by
reason of the statutory debt limit, I will be unable to invest fully the Government Securities
Investment Fund (G Fund) of the Federal Employees’ Retirement System in interest-bearing
securities of the United States, beginning on or after December 12, 2017. The statute governing
G Fund investments expressly authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to suspend investment of
the G Fund to avoid breaching the statutory debt limit. My predecessors have taken this
suspension action during previous debt limit impasses. By law, the G Fund will be made whole
once the debt limit is increased. Federal retirees and employees will be unaffected by this action.

I respectfully urge Congress to protect the full faith and credit of the United States by acting to
increase the statutory debt limit as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Sree TL [ode cber—

Steven T. Mnuchin

Identical letter sent to:
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader
The Honorable Charles E. Schumer, Senate Democratic Leader

ce: The Honorable Kevin Brady, Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means
The Honorable Richard Neal, Ranking Member, House Committee on Ways and Means
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance
The Honorable Ron Wyden, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Finance
All other Members of the 115" Congress
CYBERSECURITY FOR

SMALL BUSINESS

LEARN MORE AT:

FTC.gov/SmallBusiness

Understanding

THE NIST CYBERSECURITY 

FRAMEWORK

You may have heard about the 

NIST Cybersecurity Framework, 

but what exactly is it?

And does it apply to you? 

NIST is the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology at the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

The NIST Cybersecurity Framework helps 

businesses of all sizes better understand, 

manage, and reduce their cybersecurity risk 

and protect their networks and data. The 

Framework is voluntary. It gives your business 

an outline of best practices to help you decide 

where to focus your time and money for 

cybersecurity protection.

You can put the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 

to work in your business in these five areas: 

Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. 

1. IDENTIFY

Make a list of all equipment, software, and data 

you use, including laptops, smartphones, tablets, 

and point-of-sale devices.

Create and share a company cybersecurity 

policy that covers:

2. PROTECT • Control who logs on to your network and uses 

your computers and other devices.

• Use security software to protect data.

• Encrypt sensitive data, at rest and in transit.

• Conduct regular backups of data.

• Update security software regularly, automating 

those updates if possible.

• Have formal policies for safely disposing of 

electronic files and old devices.

• Train everyone who uses your computers, 

devices, and network about cybersecurity. 

You can help employees understand their 

personal risk in addition to their crucial role 

in the workplace.

Roles and responsibilities 

for employees, vendors, and 

anyone else with access to 

sensitive data.

Steps to take to protect against 

an attack and limit the damage if 

one occurs.
CYBERSECURITY FOR

SMALL BUSINESS

3. DETECT

Monitor your computers 

for unauthorized personnel 

access, devices (like USB 

drives), and software.

Check your network 

for unauthorized 

users or connections.

Investigate any unusual 

activities on your network 

or by your staff.

4. RESPOND

Have a plan for:

• Notifying customers, employees, and others 

whose data may be at risk.

• Keeping business operations up and running.

• Reporting the attack to law enforcement and 

other authorities.

• Investigating and containing an attack. 

• Updating your cybersecurity policy and 

plan with lessons learned.

• Preparing for inadvertent events

(like weather emergencies) that may 

put data at risk.

Test your plan regularly.

5. RECOVER

After an attack:

Repair and restore the 

equipment and parts of your 

network that were affected.

Keep employees and customers 

informed of your response and 

recovery activities.

For more information on the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and resources for small businesses, 

go to NIST.gov/CyberFramework and NIST.gov/Programs-Projects/Small-Business-Corner-SBC.

LEARN MORE AT:

FTC.gov/SmallBusiness
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 9013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4848]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Training and 
Qualifications

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee to discuss training and qualification issues.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 12 at noon.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Regional Airlines 
Association, Third floor, 1200 19th St., NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Regina L. Jones, (202) 267-9822, 
Office of Rulemaking, (ARM-100) 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, 
DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. II), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
(ARAC) to discuss training and qualification issues. This meeting will 
be held March 12, 1997, at noon, at the Regional Airlines Association. 
The agenda for this meeting will include progress reports from The Air 
Carrier Pilot Pay for Training Working Group and the Air Carrier 
Minimum Flight Time Requirements Working Group.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but may be limited to 
the space available. The public must make arrangements in advance to 
present oral statements at the meeting or may present statements to the 
committee at any time. In addition, sign and oral interpretation can be 
made available at the meeting, as well as an assistive listing device, 
if requested 10 calendar days before the meeting. Arrangements may be 
made by contacting the person listed under the heading FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19, 1997.
Thomas Toula,
Executive Director for Training and Qualifications, Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 97-4848 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1800

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Octavio Huerta-Medina, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2011

Filed: September 9, 2011

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Octavio Huerta-Medina pleaded guilty to attempting to assault, impede, and

injure a federal officer engaged in his official duties, a violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 111(a)(1) and (b). According to undisputed portions of the presentence report,

Huerta-Medina was driving his vehicle with his pregnant girlfriend and a young child

as passengers, when law enforcement officers attempted to execute arrest warrants on

him. Huerta-Medina then rammed his vehicle into a police car, drove off at high

speed, struck a bystander’s vehicle, drove into oncoming lanes of traffic, and
ultimately collided with the victim-FBI agent’s vehicle. The District Court1

 sentenced

him to 70 months in prison. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), seeking to withdraw and arguing that the District

Court erred by (1) applying enhancements under both U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(6) and

§ 3A1.2(c)(1) and (2) applying an enhancement for reckless endangerment during

flight based on the same conduct encompassed in the offense Guideline, see U.S.S.G.

§ 3C1.2, comment. (n.1). 

We conclude that the District Court properly applied the Guidelines. See

United States v. Bates, 584 F.3d 1105, 1108 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). 

First, the Guidelines expressly required both a 2-level increase for Huerta-Medina’s

conviction under section 111(b), see U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(6), and an official-victim

enhancement, see U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2, comment. (n.4) (“If subsection (b)(6) applies,

§ 3A1.2 (Official Victim) also shall apply.”). Second, we conclude that the recklessendangerment enhancement was proper because Huerta-Medina endangered other

motorists and his own passengers during the car chase and that conduct was not the

same as his eventual assault of a federal officer. Cf. United States v. Miner, 108 F.3d

967, 970 (8th Cir.) (approving Chapter Three adjustments both for official victim,

based on defendant’s ramming his car into police roadblock, and for reckless

endangerment during flight, based on defendant’s conduct during car chase that

created risk of serious injury to other drivers and pedestrians), cert. denied, 522 U.S.

904 (1997). 

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave

to withdraw and we affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-
yearID sourceTypeID sourceTypePopulation

2009 11 15037

2009 21 361617

2009 31 255661

2009 32 85412

2009 41 252

2009 42 145

2009 43 1723

2009 51 235

2009 52 12401

2009 53 1496

2009 54 2841

2009 61 2860

2009 62 3350