alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleasesCensus 2000

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

### Release Information

**CB01-CN.111**
**Contact:**  Public Information Office								301-457-3691/301-457-3620 (fax)301-457-1037 (TDD)e-mail: 2000usa@census.govStatistical Information StaffPopulation Division301-457-2422e-mail: pop@census.gov

## FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  EMBARGOED UNTIL: 12:01 A.M. EDT, MAY 18, 2001 (FRIDAY)

## Census Bureau Releases Census 2000 Demographic Profile for Utah

The U.S. Census Bureau today released the *Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: Census 2000* for Utah, a one-page table providing Census 2000 data on age and sex distribution, race, Hispanic origin, household relationship and type, housing occupancy and tenure (whether the housing occupant owns or rents).

 The profile includes nearly 100 data items in all, plus percentage distributions.

 In addition to the profile of the state as a whole, similar demographic profiles for counties, places and other geographic components of the state can be accessed on an embargoed basis at <https://www.census.gov/dcmd/www/embargo/embargo_demoprofile.html>. After the release time, go to the Census Bureau's online search-and-retrieval database *American FactFinder* <http://factfinder2.census.gov> or to its Demographic Profile Page <https://www.census.gov/census2000/demoprofile.html>. You will also be able to download the profiles from the bureau's file transfer protocol site <http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/demographic_profile/>.

 For information about how to order paper copies of Census 2000 demographic profiles, contact Customer Services Center, U.S. Census Bureau, 301-457-4100; or e-mail:<webmaster@census.gov>.

 For local context, contact the Utah State Data Center, 801-537-9013; e-mail: <lhillman@gov.state.ut.us>.

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted February 1, 2006

Decided February 1, 2006 Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge No. 05-2341 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. TOMMIE L. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division No. 2:04 CR 59-01 Rudy Lozano, Judge

. O R D E R Tommie Johnson pleaded guilty in accordance with a plea agreement to one count of dealing at least five grams of crack, see 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment. In the plea agreement, Johnson recites that “I expressly waive my right to appe al or to contest my conviction and my sentence or the manner in which my conviction or sentence was determined or imposed, to any Court on any ground” other than ineffective assistance of counsel relating to the waiver. Johnson filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel perceives only frivolous arguments and therefore moves to withdraw under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We have given Johnson the opportunity to respond to counsel’s motion, see Cir. R. 51(b), but he has chosen not to, and so we limit our review to the potential issues co unsel identifies in his facially adequate brief. See United States v. Tabb , 125 F.3d 583, 584 (7th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 05-2341 Page 2 Counsel informs us that Johnson does not want his guilty plea set aside, so it is appropriate that counsel refrains fromdiscussing potential challenges to the conviction and sentence. See United States v. Knox , 287 F.3d 667, 671-72 (7th Cir. 2002). Review is generally foreclosed unless Johnson could successfully challenge the appeal waiver's validity, which he does not seek to do. See United States v. Lockwood , 416 F.3d 604, 607 (7th Cir. 2005); United State v. Whitlow , 287 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Hare , 269 F.3d 859, 860-61 (7th Cir. 2001). Since Johnson still wants to keep the benefit of the government's concessions in the plea agreement, any attempt to escape th e appeal waiver would be frivolous. See Lockwood , 416 F.3d at 607 (stating that Rule 11 does not permit piecemeal rejection of plea agreement provisions); Hare , 269 F.3d at 861 (stating that “a waiver of appeal is valid, and must be enforced, unless the agreement in which it is contained is annulled”). Counsel also assesses whether to argue the only claim left open by the appeal waiver—ineffective assistance of counsel innegotiating the waiver itself. But this too is unavailable given Johnson’s unwillingness to withdraw his plea, see Knox , 287 F.3d at 671-72, and in any event would be more appropriately considered on collateral rather than direct review, see Galbraith v. United States , 313 F.3d 1001, 1007-08 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.
# C_2012375EN.01001201.xml

| 5.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/12

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

2012/C 375/06

Image

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Malta

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Malta

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the Community providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country: Malta

Subject of commemoration: Majority Representation 1887

Description of the design: The design was created by the Maltese artist Gianni Bonnici and it shows a jubilant crowd with the Governor’s Palace, in Valletta, depicted in the background. At the top of the inner ring, in a semicircle, the inscription ‘MALTA — Majority representation 1887’. At the bottom the year ‘2012’.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued:

Date of issue: September 2012

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
#### Fannie Patricia WILLCOX and Ward Warren Willcox, Petitioners, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42255.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 28, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 258 So.2d 298.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

McCAIN, J., dissents.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAPHIS LAMPKINS, SR.,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 44, 2018

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No. 80001076DI (N)

§ 

§

§

Submitted: February 5, 2018

Decided: February 28, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

Having considered the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, the 

Court concludes that:

(1) On January 23, 2018, the appellant, Japhis Lampkins, Sr., filed a notice 

of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated and docketed on December 20, 2017, 

denying his motion for correction of sentence. Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), 

a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before January 19, 2018. The 

Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Lampkinsto show cause why this appeal 

should not be dismissed as untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6.

(2) In his response to the notice to show cause, Lampkins states that he 

mailed the notice of appeal on January 18, 2018, two days before the deadline. 
2

Lampkins further states that he had difficulty preparing a response because he was 

unable to use the law library and his legal papers were confiscated due to disciplinary 

problems. 

(3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1 A notice of appeal must be 

received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period in 

order to be effective.2 An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to 

comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.3 

Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal 

is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.4 

(4) The record does not reflect that Lampkins’ failure to file a timely notice 

of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. Prison personnel are not courtrelated personnel.5

 Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the 

general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. This appeal must 

be dismissed.

 

1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).

2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).

3

Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012).

4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).

5

Jones v. State, 2014 WL 1512805, at *1 (Del. Apr. 15, 2014).
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIALS
STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          59,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,573
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     80,620
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               386,463
<PP&E>                                         825,252
<DEPRECIATION>                                 797,109
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,430,102
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,047,011
<BONDS>                                        160,529
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,751
<OTHER-SE>                                     222,562
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,430,102
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           16,509
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  316,077
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,760
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (320,825)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (320,825)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (320,825)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2013144EN.01S00301.xml

| 24.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/s3

---

NOTICE

On 24 May 2013, in Official Journal of the European Union C 144 A, the ‘Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — fifth supplement to the 31st complete edition’ will be published.

Official Journal of the European Union

Subscribers to the Official Journal may obtain the same number of copies and language versions of this Official Journal as those to which they subscribe free of charge. They are requested to return the attached order form, duly completed and bearing their subscription registration number (code appearing on the left of each label and beginning with: O/...). This Official Journal will remain available free of charge for one year from the date of its publication.

Non-subscribers can order this Official Journal against payment from one of our sales offices (see http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

This Official Journal — like all Official Journals (L, C, CA, CE) — can be consulted free of charge online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Image

---
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 on Form 10-Q of CFC International,
     Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") for the quarter period ended
     September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
     the date hereof (the "Report"), I Roger F. Hruby, Chairman of the Board,
     and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
     U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
     of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.



     /s/                                                 Roger F. Hruby
     ------------------------------------------------------------------
     Name:        Roger F. Hruby
     Title:       Chairman of the Board, and Chief Executive Officer
     Date:        November 05, 2003

     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
     Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
     the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
     of ss. 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
     been provided by CFC International, Inc., and will be retained by CFC
     International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or
     its staff upon request.
# C_2012259EN.01000101.xml

| 28.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 259/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 259/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6679 — STEAG/Fronterasol/OHL Industrial/Arenales Solar)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 259/01

On 22 August 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6679. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6679. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Joseph JARRETT and Mary F. Jarrett, his wife, Appellants, v. Perry ALSTON, as the surviving administrator of the Estate of J. L. Alston, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 70-964.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 2, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rexford Bonsu, Appellant.

[735 NYS2d 537]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered February 4, 2000, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term *252of five years probation and ordering him to pay $1,000 in restitution, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence that defendant intended to cause physical injury. Defendant’s intent may be inferred from his conduct and the surrounding circumstances *(see, People v Bracey,*41 NY2d 296, 301). Defendant struck the complainant in the chest with a machete, causing physical injury that resulted in profuse bleeding and which required an overnight hospital stay, following a heated argument during which defendant threatened to kill the complainant. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.
. : '·'. ·' ; ; ·' l ~: : 

'-rf-c ····~--· 3 ····--- ...... Ta .... - r'"'7 ·-:xnr wi.fi* z_zsp -+·fZ?~·&z+r*~-X.-.J .. JX~-+t . .1 a¥¥nm·+.&+&+i-7.r.:£¥ia\&\LA&: . .&l. i;:;~---··. ~· ;.s .. 

December 22, 2014 

Scott Faulk 

Essential Air Service 

308 Grady Montgomery Drive 

Jackson, TN 38301 

Office: 731-423-0995- Fax: 731-423-0997 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Order 2014-10-21 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

;_ .-· :··. :_. : 

After careful review of submitted proposals to provide air .ser:vice to Jackson, Tennessee, the 

Jackson-Madison County Airport Authority consid~rs Air Choice One the best option for Jackson 

The Authority reached this conclusion after a per~otrmmce a'ti.dit ofthe current carrier Seaport 

Airlines. Seaport has failed to meet original expectations. Over the hlst 12 months, Seaport's 

completion rate has been 78%, Additionally, S~aport has reduced efforts to increase their customer 

base in Jackson. Mainterianc~ his ~lso been an issue wi.fu Seapprt.}'l~nes pulled for service often 

were out for weeks. This resulted in cancelled flights to Jackson~. 

On many occasions, passengers have missed urgent connections because of cancelled flights. Poor 

reliability has resulted in the loss of potential customers. The Nashville Airport is an easy 2.5 hour 

drive from Jackson. ' : . : ~ . . . 

The Authority believes a change in the destination city and the air carrier will encourage passengers 

to use air service from McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport. 

The St. Louis Airport Authority and Air Choice One are in partnership promoting air service to the 

St. Louis Airport. Passengers will go through TSA screening in St. Louis and will have direct 

access to the terminal rather than being shuttled from an FBO to the terminal. 

The Jackson-Madison County Airport Authority is convinced that a change is necessary, and the 

above mentioned partnership is the best option for Jackson. The Authority supports the bid of Air 

Choice One. 

Tim Wilson, Chairman 

Jackson-Madison County Airport Authority 

~ .3. t. .3.. t .; 

·· ~- Z-~· .. - - · ·· 2 2 ·- ,...a .z.p-: ~; m-&+r s-&mc;.k&r·w· w · · T ·· 5 · ·· ... . 1. 1 & S..Z.f¥-9' ± +:·wa·m rN ··· ··e. sua. · a.· Y"f ·r -·· 1·· ··· .. . a.·· 2 .x z.s zxz --' 5·¥·2 25 · Z'f"?T ... ,. . .,. 

www.mckellarsipes.com
Exhibit 32.2

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 Dynamic Health Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Cani I. Shuman, Chief Financial Officer 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 14, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Cani I. Shuman     
|                      |  |  |  | Cani I. Shuman         
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### Frank J. D’AMICO and Anthony J. Vesich, Jr. v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, INC., and City of New Orleans.

No. 60523.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 26, 1977.

In re: Frank J; D’Amico and Anthony J. Vesich, Jr. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans, 348 So.2d 116.

Writ refused.

SUMMERS, CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ.,

think the writ should be granted.