alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7679
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BETTY JEAN MURPHY-BARBER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-89-280) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 19, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Betty Jean Murphy-Barber, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Appellant appeals from the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's order denying her motion for transcripts at government expense. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Murphy , No. CR-89-280 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 1995). We dispense withoral 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
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Gettles, Appellee.

(No. 31054

Decided June 11, 1947.)

*Mr. Paul V. Waddell,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. Austin G. Furbee*and *Mr. Edmund L. Mats,*for appellant.

*Mr. A. G. Lancione*and *Mr. Boss Michener,*for appellee.

*458It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

> Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
| 200 Witmer Road  -  P.O. Box 1015  -  Horsham, PA  19044-8015 GMAC Commercial Mortgage Annual Statement as to Compliance For the Year Ended December 31, 2004 ***********GMACCM Mortgage Trust I******Series 2004-C2*******Pursuant to Section 3.13 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction, I hereby attest that: i.A review of the activities of GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation as Master Servicer during the period, and of its performance under this Trust and Servicing Agreement, has been made under my supervision. ii.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation as Master Servicer, has fulfilled in all material respects its obligations under this Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout the period. iii.GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer, has received no notice regarding qualifications, or challenging the status, of any REMIC Pool as a REMIC or the status of either Grantor Trust Pool as a Grantor Trust or otherwise asserting a tax on the income or assets of any portion of the Trust Fund from the Internal Revenue Service or any other governmental agency or body. GMAC COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION /s/ *Brian T. Stauffer*By:   Brian T. Stauffer Title:   Senior Vice President Date:   March 29, 2005 **************.**** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1859 

To reinstate Federal matching of State spending of child support incentive 

payments. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 22, 2009 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. KOHL, and Ms. SNOWE) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reinstate Federal matching of State spending of child 

support incentive payments. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Support Protec5 tion Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF FEDERAL MATCHING OF 

7 STATE SPENDING OF CHILD SUPPORT INCEN8 TIVE PAYMENTS. 

9 Effective October 1, 2010, section 455(a)(1) of the 

10 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 655(a)(1)) is amended by 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1859 IS

1 striking ‘‘from amounts paid to the State under section 

2 458 or’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
July 30, 2015

Mr. Donald Kent Howard

Better Homes Realty-Realtor

Don Kent Photography-Photographer

4014 Hummingbird Way

Clayton, CA 94517

Dear Mr. Howard:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 21, Subpart H; §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103 (b),91.109, 

91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 

91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we 

cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your May 19, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Better Homes Realty-Realtor

Don Kent Photography-Photographer filed into the public docket (No. FAA−2015−1726), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
EXHIBIT 32

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 (the "Report") as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, we Joseph Kliminski, Chief Executive Officer, and Eric Heyer, Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and                                                                                                                                          
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 2. | The information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial
statements included in such report.

|Dated: | August 14, 2006 |  | /s/ Joseph KliminskiJoseph KliminskiChief Executive Officer                    
|------ | --------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: | August 14, 2006 |  | /s/ Eric B. HeyerEric B. HeyerSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Orlando RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 20570.

Supreme Court of Utah.

May 2, 1986.

Bernard L. Allen, Ogden, for defendant and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Earl F. Dorius, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant has appealed his conviction and sentence after pleading guilty to manslaughter, a second degree felony.

Defendant’s counsel submitted an *An-ders*
      1 brief explaining defendant’s claim that the sentence imposed was excessive. However, counsel did not follow the notice requirements set forth by this Court in *State v. Clayton,*Utah, 639 P.2d 168 (1981), and his accompanying request to withdraw as defendant’s attorney was denied. Defendant also submitted to the Court additional argument for reversal of his sentence, alleging that his attorney below did not properly advise him of his constitutional rights before he pleaded guilty and that the presentence report given to the court was incomplete. Defendant also makes extraneous arguments which are not properly before us, and we decline to consider them.

After careful review of the record on appeal, including the transcript of the proceedings below, we find no merit to defendant’s appeal and, therefore, affirm his conviction and sentence. Defendant was origi*396nally charged with second degree homicide. Having been advised of his constitutional rights by the court, he pleaded guilty to manslaughter. U.C.A., 1953, § 76-5-205 (Supp.1985). Before pleading guilty, defendant reviewed, initialled, and signed an expiation agreement which specifically set forth his constitutional rights and his agreement to waive them by pleading guilty. He acknowledged therein that no promises had been made to him in exchange for his guilty plea and that he might receive a prison sentence.

After a lengthy sentencing hearing, at which defendant’s counsel argued the mitigating circumstances of the offense, the lower court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate prison term of one to fifteen years. U.C.A., 1953, § 76-3-203(2) (Supp.1983). The record does not support the contention that defendant was precluded from presenting any evidence of mitigation to the sentencing judge. The court received and reviewed all materials submitted by defendant and his attorney. In every aspect, the conviction was proper and the sentence well within the discretion of the trial court. *State v. Amicone,*Utah, 689 P.2d 1341 (1984); *State v. Clark,*Utah, 632 P.2d 841, 844 (1981); *State v. Gerrard,*Utah, 584 P.2d 885 (1978).

Defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

. *See Anders*v. *California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
#### In the Matter of Ronald R. Chapman, Petitioner, v Pano Z. Patsalos et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (1) to vacate a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County, rendered November 13, 1990, (2) to dismiss Orange County Indictment No. 196/89, and (3) to release the petitioner from the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services.

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

"Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged —acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564, 569; *accord, Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 353). Likewise, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus lies to compel the. performance of a purely ministerial act only where there is a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see, Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16). Inasmuch as the petitioner seeks direct review of his judgment of conviction under the guise of this special proceeding, the relief requested is clearly inappropriate and the proceeding is dismissed. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Fiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1774 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1774

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
                For the relief of Hotaru Nakama Ferschke.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR HOTARU NAKAMA FERSCHKE.
    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Hotaru Nakama Ferschke 
shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 
of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Hotaru Nakama Ferschke enters the 
United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 
she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 
shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Hotaru Nakama Ferschke, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall be 
determined by reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary 
Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in 
the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
vote on passage.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
40,00035,00030,00025,000

ses20,000

Ca15,00010,0005,00001994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Reported Cases of Lyme Disease by Year,United States, 1994-2008State health departments reported 28,921 confirmed cases and 6,277 probable cases of Lyme disease to CDC in 2008.This represents a 5% increase in confirmed cases compared to2007. The definition and reportingof probable cases was initiatedin 2008 based on revisions to the national surveillance case definition.Probable casesConfirmed cases
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.25


                                        January 16, 1997




Mr. Drake S. Tempest
O'Melveny & Meyers LLP
Citicorp Center
153 East 53rd Street
New York, New York 10022-4611

Dear Mr. Tempest:

         This will serve to confirm the understanding between Jack L. Messman,
on behalf of Union Pacific Resources Group Inc. ("Resources"), and Philip F.
Anschutz, on behalf of The Anschutz Corporation ("TAC"), regarding the
designation by TAC of an individual to be elected as director of Resources
pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Amended and Restated Agreement dated as of July
12, 1996, among Resources, TAC, Anschutz Foundation and Philip F. Anschutz
("Agreement").  At their December 20, 1996, meeting, Messrs. Messman and
Anschutz agreed that TAC will have an ongoing right to designate an individual
as a director of the Resources Board of Directors ("Board"), provided that TAC
advises Resources in writing of such designation, and that all other relevant
provisions of the Agreement are met.  The individual designated by TAC and
reasonably acceptable to the Board shall be elected at the meeting of the Board
next following the designation thereof by TAC.

         To assist TAC with its planning, I am enclosing the 1997 regular
meeting schedule for the Board.  If the election of the TAC designee does not
occur in 1997, Resources will provide TAC and O'Melveny & Myers LLP, as counsel
for TAC, with the schedule for the regular meetings of the Board in future
years.
<PAGE>   2


Mr. Drake S. Tempest
January 16, 1997
Page 2



         Please indicate your agreement with the foregoing by signing and
returning to me the enclosed original of this letter.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        /s/Joseph A. LaSala, Jr
                                        -----------------------
                                        Joseph A. LaSala, Jr.





ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:


By:      /s/ Drake S. Tempest
         --------------------
         Drake S. Tempest
         of O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         on behalf of The Anschutz Corporation

Date:    January 20, 1997
         ----------------
c:       Mr. Jack L. Messman
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1875 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Orgasol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Orgasol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ORGASOL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.39.08 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Orgasol) is amended by striking the date in the effective 

7 period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00580-CV

IN THE MATTER OF A.C., a Child

From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018JUV00416

Honorable Daphne Previti Austin, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order of adjudication 

is AFFIRMED. Because appellant is indigent, no costs of this appeal are assessed. 

SIGNED February 26, 2019.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders

    HomeNewsCommentaries     Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians
        
            Commentaries
 Keyword
 Type Select a CategoryTop StoriesMission/TrainingFeaturesSecretary of the AFAF Chief of StaffChief Master Sgt. of the AFCommentariesSequestration NewsSpace/TechnologyHumanitarianAFSO 21Women's History Month 1-15EnvironmentalWarrior CareDiversityDignified TransferSafetyHeritageAir Force FamilyPersonnel MattersCommander's Call TopicsHaiti Earthquake ReliefDon't Ask Don't TellSuicide PreventionWarrior GamesEnergyAircraftEtchbergerSexual AssaultOperation TomodachiOperation Odyssey Dawn2011 Appropriations InformationHurricane Irene9/11AFAWeek in PhotosThrough Airmen's EyesThrough AIrmen's Eyes FeaturesThrough Their Words2012 Appropriations InformationAfrican American History MonthAfrican American Heritage Month 1-15African American Heritage Month 16-29Fiscal Year BudgetAir Force StoriesColorado WildfireChief of Staff ArchiveHurricane IsaacAFA 2012APP RSSAPP Airman VisualsExpeditionary OperationsHurricane SandyTransition GPSAir Force in SpaceSports/RecreationH1N1Women's History Month 16-30Oklahoma Tornado ReliefMemorial DayCOVID-19 CommentariesCOVID-19
 RecentOldestTitle A > ZTitle Z > A
 March 31, 2022A culture of inclusion is key to success
        In recognition of Transgender Day of Visibility, AFMC’s LGBTQ Initiatives Team highlights the importance of inclusion for transgender people across the mission and how individuals can support the command and Air Force-wide inclusion efforts.  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil