alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15041]



[[Page 32671]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Member conflict: AIDS and AIDS Related Research.
    Date: July 26, 2018.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Jingsheng Tuo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 5207, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-8754, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d191802072d03080443030405430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87f3f2e8edc7e9e2eea9e9eeefa9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; PAR Panel: Role of HIV on Renal, Urologic, Hematological and 
Metabolic Dysfunction.
    Date: August 1, 2018.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Renaissance Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20036.
    Contact Person: Dimitrios Nikolaos Vatakis, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3190, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-
827-7480, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f3b3632362b2d36302c71293e2b3e34362c1f31363771383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="482c2125213c3a21273b663e293c2923213b08262120662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 10, 2018.
Natasha M. Copeland,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-15041 Filed 7-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MARCELLUS JAMES FENNELL, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 7:08

- cr - 00077

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : September 28 , 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023

Before NIEMEYER , THACKER , and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Marcellus James Fennell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 20-7120 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Marcellus James Fennell, Jr., appeals the distr ict court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a sentence reduction. See Concepcion v. United States , 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404

- 05 (2022) ( explaining standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order

. United States v. Fennell , No. 7:08

- cr - 00077

- D

- 1 ( E .D.N.C. Apr. 16, 2020 ). * We dispense wit h 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

* This appeal was held in abeyance for United States v. Stokes , No. 20

- 6021, 2023 WL 5014095 (4th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023). USCA4 Appeal: 20-7120 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### HIGHTOWER v. UNITED STATES.

No. 8172.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 1, 1937.

Rehearing Denied March 8, 1937.

Robert L. Fortune, of Phoenix, Ariz., for appellant.

F. E. Flynn, U. S. Atty., and George E. Wood, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Phoenix, Ariz.

Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction on a charge of violating the Harrison Narcotic Act, as amended (26 U.S.C.A. §§ 1040-1054, 1383-1391). The appellee moves to strike out the bill of exceptions on the ground that it was not filed or settled in time. The judgment was rendered March 3, 1936. The appeal was taken March 6th. The bill of exceptions recites that it was filed within the time allowed by an order dated June 8, 1936. The thirty-day period fixed by rule 9 of the Rules of.Practice and Procedure in Criminal Cases had expired. 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723a. It follows that the motion to strike out the bill of exceptions must be granted. St. Charles v. United States (C.C.A.9) 86 F.(2d) 463, decided November 25,1936; Cary *303& Williams v. United States (C.C.A.9) 86 F.(2d) 461, decided November 16, 19.36; Slade v. United States (C.C.A.) 85 F.(2d) 786; United States v. Ray (C.C.A.2) 86 F.(2d) 942, decided December 21, 1936.

No other question remains save the sufficiency of the indictment to charge an offense. A similar indictment was upheld by us in Du Vall v. United States, 82 F.(2d) 382.

It should be added that a motion to quash is contained in the transcript and that certain extensions of time also appear in the transcript. Neither can be considered as a part of the record.. To become a part of the record they must be incorporated in the bill of exceptions.

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14434]



[[Page 31431]]

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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: July 5, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
June 29, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 83 
to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2018-189, CP2018-263.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-14434 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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 Whitemark Homes, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

      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 results of operation of the
Company.

      Date:  May 12, 2004


                                            /s/ Kenneth White
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Kenneth White
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            and acting Chief Financial Officer


      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authentications, 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 Whitemark Homes,
Inc. and will be retained by Whitemark Homes, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CORRECTED MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00499-CR

CHRISTOPHER ERNEST BRAUGHTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 228th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1389139).

TO THE 228TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 14th day of July 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or 

to reverse your order was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the order signed by the 

court on April 20, 2015. After submitting the case on the 

appellate record, the Court holds that the trial court’s order 

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms 

the trial court’s order.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered July 14, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd.
WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court 

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

October 2, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13908]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Wage and Hour Division

29 CFR Part 825


The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993

CFR Correction

0
 In Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 500 to 899, 
revised as of July 1, 2017, on page 821, in Sec.  825.120, paragraph 
(a)(4) is amended as follows:
--Remove the third sentence of the paragraph;
--Add a sentence following the first sentence of the paragraph; and
--Add a sentence following the last sentence of the paragraph.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  825.120   Leave for pregnancy or birth.

    (a) * * *
    (4) * * * Circumstances may require that FMLA leave begin before 
the actual date of birth of a child. * * * For example, a pregnant 
employee may be unable to report to work because of severe morning 
sickness.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-13908 Filed 6-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
#### Moses MACK v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY et al.

No. 11559.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Oct. 17, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1977.

Michael W. McKay, Baton Rouge, of counsel for plaintiff-appellant Moses Mack.

Robert D. Hoover, Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendants-appellees United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., et al.

Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and PONDER, JJ.

PONDER, Judge.

Plaintiff seeks workmen’s compensation benefits for disability resulting from back injuries, allegedly sustained during the course and scope of his employment. He has appealed from a judgment of dismissal.

The issue is whether an alleged incident of May 17,1976, caused plaintiff’s disability.

We affirm.

Moses Mack injured his back in 1972 and re-injured it in 1975. Dr. Dean Moore and Dr. James A. Poche, orthopedic surgeons, diagnosed his condition as a possible herniated disc and recommended a myelogram to confirm the need for surgery. Mr. Mack refused the myelogram and surgery until after the alleged accident in May.

In February, 1976, Moses Mack compromised his claims, past and future, for workmen’s compensation which arose out of the 1972 and 1975 accidents.

After the October accident plaintiff worked off and on until May 20, 1976. He claims that on May 17, while reaching for *1307and pulling a fuel line under a truck, he suffered the herniated disc which resulted in the requirement for surgical removal and fusion of the disc.

The evidence is contradictory and casts some doubt on the May 17, 1976 incident, but the lower court evidently resolved that doubt in plaintiff’s favor. However, the medical testimony indicates that the most probable cause of the injury was the October injury. In fact, Mr. Mack himself thought so little of the May incident that he failed to mention it to his employer or to Dr. Poche. Since there are facts to support the lower court’s finding that plaintiff’s condition was caused by the October accident, this court should not reverse without finding it manifestly erroneous. *Canter v. Koehring Company,*La., 283 So.2d 716 (1973).

The lower court found, also, that the May incident, if any, did not cause an aggravation of the already disabling injury. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving this relationship. *Prim v. City of Shreveport,*La., 297 So.2d 421 (1974). We cannot say the court was wrong.

For these reasons, the judgment is affirmed. Plaintiff is cast for all costs of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021189EN.01001401.xml

| 17.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 5 March 2021 — A, B and C, legally represented by his parents v Ministre de l’Immigration et de l’Asile

(Case C-153/21)

(2021/C 189/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal Administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A, B and C, legally represented by his parents

Defendant: Ministre de l’Immigration et de l’Asile

Question referred

Can Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, (1) read in conjunction with Article 23 of Directive 2011/95/EU on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, (2) and with Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as permitting a declaration of inadmissibility in respect of an application for international protection made by the parents of a minor, in the name and on behalf of that minor, in a Member State (in this case Luxembourg) other than that which has previously granted international protection to the parents, brothers and sisters of the child, but not to the child himself (in this case Greece), on the ground that the authorities of the country which granted international protection to the parents, brothers and sisters, prior to their departure from that country and prior to the birth of the child, have guaranteed that, on arrival of the child and return of the other family members, the child will be granted a residence permit and will have the same benefits available to him as are granted to beneficiaries of international protection, though without stating that he will be granted international protection in his own right?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.

(2)  OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.

---
CEO EMPLOYMENT CONTINUATION AGREEMENT

Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. ("the Company") and Joseph J. Francesconi
("Officer"), in partial consideration for his continuing officer and employment
relationship and to encourage continued employment in the event of a potential
Change of Control, agree as follows:

1. In the event of Termination of Employment of Officer resulting from a
Corporate Transaction, Change of Control or Hostile Take-Over (as those terms
are defined in the 1993 Stock Option Plan, collectively referred to in this
Agreement as "Change of Control") or from involuntary termination for reasons
other than cause, the Company will provide severance benefits as follows:

     a.   two years of Officer's base salary ("salary continuance"),
     b.   two years of Officer's variable compensation (computed using the
          mid-point of the applicable range and the company "meets plan"),
     c.   Officer level medical, dental, life and disability insurance during
          the period of salary continuance, and
     d.   vesting of outstanding stock options and restricted stock awards
          during the period of salary continuance.

2. "Termination of Employment" of Officer occurs when one of the following
occurs: he is terminated without cause, job location is changed more than 50
miles, his compensation is materially reduced or responsibilities are
substantially altered or reduced (without express consent of the employee) by
the Company, or by any successor to the Company in conjunction with or within
one year after the close of a Change of Control.

3. In the event of a Termination Of Employment in conjunction with a Change of
Control, then vesting of outstanding stock options and restricted stock held by
Officer shall accelerate at the time of such Termination. All vested options
shall be exercisable for the duration of the life of the option.

4. In order to receive the foregoing, Officer agrees to execute the Company's
release and non-competition agreement at the time of any such Termination of
Employment.

Agreed this 14th day of April, 1998.

NETWORK EQUIPMENT                       -------------------------
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                      JOSEPH J. FRANCESCONI

By: Roger A. Barney                     /s/ Joseph J. Francesconi
    ---------------------------         -------------------------
                                        (Signature)
Title: V.P. HR & Corp. Services
       ------------------------

April 14, 1998                                               N.E.T. Confidential
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-16934

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cr-00017-WTH-PRL-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

CHARLES LEWIS MADISON, JR., 

a.k.a. Blue, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(May 22, 2017)

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-16934 Date Filed: 05/22/2017 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Adeel Bashir, appointed counsel for Charles Madison, Jr. in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

appellant pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent 

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of 

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals 

no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and 

Charles Madison, Jr.’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

 

Case: 16-16934 Date Filed: 05/22/2017 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                  ------------
         Section 1350 Certifications of Principal Executive Officer and
                           Principal Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of 1st Independence
Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2007 (the  "Report") of the Company  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934  and  the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: May 7, 2007          /s/ N. William White
                                --------------------------------
                                Name:     N. William White
                                Title:    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)


                            /s/ R. Michael Wilbourn
                                --------------------------------
                                Name:     R. Michael Wilbourn
                                Title:    Executive Vice President
                                          and Chief Financial Officer
                                          (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Ruby Thaxton Rond, wife of/and Samuel ROND and Samuel Rond, Individually and for and on Behalf of his Minor Daughters, Shawn Rond and Tina Johnson v. William H. SIMS, Sr., Warehouse Corporation of American and Security Insurance Group.

No. 61992.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: William H. Sims, Sr., Warehouse Corp. of American and Security Insurance Group, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 355 So.2d 591.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS, J., would grant the writ.
Exhibit 32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Solelyin connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report of RetractableTechnologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2009, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Thomas J. Shaw, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, and Douglas W. Cowan, Chief Financial Officer, do hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the issuer.

 

Date:    May 15,2009

 
|   | s/Thomas  J. Shaw                           |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   | THOMAS J. SHAW                              |
|   | PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN,  AND                   |
|   | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                     |
|   |                                        |
|   |                                        |
|   | s/Douglas  W. Cowan                         |
|   | DOUGLAS W. COWAN                            |
|   | VICE PRESIDENT AND  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER |