alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7637]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research, Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Site visit review of the Materials Research Science and 
Engineering Center (MRSEC) at the Pennsylvania State University by 
the Division of Materials Research (DMR) <greek-i>1203.
    Dates & Times: April 24, 2012; 5:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m.; April 25, 
2012; 7:45 a.m.- 7:30 p.m.; April 26, 2012; 8 a.m.-4:45 p.m.
    Place: Pennsylvania State University, College Station, PA.
    Type of Meeting: Part open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Sean L. Jones, Program Director, Materials 
Research Science and Engineering Centers Program, Division of 
Materials Research, Room 1065, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292-2986.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning further support of the MRSEC at Penn State.
    Agenda:

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

6 p.m.-7 p.m. Closed--Briefing of panel
7 p.m.-8:30 p.m. Open--Poster Session

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

7:45 a.m.-3:45 p.m. Open--Review of the MRSEC
3:45 p.m.-5:30 p.m. Closed--Executive Session
6 p.m.-7:30 p.m. Open--Dinner

Thursday, April 26, 2012

8 a.m.-9 a.m. Closed--Executive session
9 a.m.-10:45 a.m. Open--Review of the MRSEC
10:45 a.m.-4:45 p.m. Closed--Executive Session, Draft and Review 
Report

    Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed may include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the MRSEC. These 
matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552 b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: March 27, 2012.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-7637 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES DAVID WILLIAMS, Jr.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

PORTERVILLE POLICE

DEPARTMENT and DOMINIC

BARTEAU,

 Defendants - Appellees,

No. 10-15748

D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00546-AWIDLB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Charles David Williams, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from

the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

unlawful entry and false arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

FILED

JUL 6 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-15748

review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Officer Barteau

because Williams did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

Officer Barteau had consent to enter his residence. See Espinosa v. City and Cnty.

of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528, 533 (9th Cir. 2010) (consent is an exception to the

Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement); United States v. Enslin, 327 F.3d 788,

793-94 (9th Cir. 2003) (in order to give valid consent, a third party must have

either actual or apparent authority); see also United States v. Ruiz, 428 F.3d 877,

881 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth the requirements for establishing apparent

authority). Nor did Williams raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

Officer Barteau had probable cause to arrest him. See United States v. Lopez, 482

F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Probable cause to arrest exists when officers

have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to lead a person

of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by

the person being arrested.”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the City of

Porterville Police Department because Williams did not raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether a constitutional violation had occurred. See Jackson v.

City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646, 653-54 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Neither a municipality
3 10-15748

nor a supervisor . . . can be held liable under § 1983 where no injury or

constitutional violation has occurred.”).

Williams’s remaining contentions, including those concerning the

admissibility and credibility of the Melissa Williams declaration, are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
50227.

#### RADCLIFF v. THE STATE.

Quillian, Judge.

In the case sub judice the defendant’s probation was revoked because the trial judge found that the defendant was sitting in a car drinking beer at 4:00 a.m. While the evidence might have supported a finding that the defendant violated a condition of his probation which pro*245hibited alcoholic intoxication, this was not one of the grounds stated in the petition for revocation of probation. Therefore the order of revocation was erroneous. *Dingler v. State,*101 Ga. App. 312 (113 SE2d 496); *George v. State,*99 Ga. App. 892 (109 SE2d 883); *Gay v. State,*101 Ga. App. 225 (113 SE2d 223); *Kendrick v. State,*125 Ga. App. 326 (187 SE2d 580).

Submitted February 4, 1975

Decided February 19, 1975

Rehearing denied March 11, 1975.

*Edward J. Magner,*for appellant.

*George W. Darden, District Attorney, B. Wayne Phillips, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Pannell, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 28 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 28

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 
        402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 1999

 Mr. Smith of New Hampshire introduced the following joint resolution; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 
        402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress does not approve 
the extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade 
Act of 1974 recommended by the President to Congress on June 3, 1999 
with respect to Vietnam.
                                 <all>
```
#### HAPAX, INCORPORATED v. SUCCESSION OF Alton A. GLAPION and Mrs. Sara M. Glapion.

No. 88-C-0251.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Glapion, Alton A., Succ. of; Gla-pion, Sara M. Mrs.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-7830; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “H”, No. 85-02984.

Prior report: La.App., 519 So.2d 192.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.**I, Charles W. Hunter, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Xenonics Holdings, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the smallbusiness issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date:  August 13, 2007              /s/ Charles W. Hunter   Name:  Charles W. Hunter   Title:  Chief Executive Officer
#### James M. HERRINGTON v. CITY OF RIDGELAND, Mississippi.

No. 57386.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 9, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 3, 1988.

W.E. Gore, Jr., Thomas J. Lowe, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.

Steve H. Smith, Smith & Case, Ridge-land, for appellee.

Before HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER and SULLIVAN, JJ. AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 359 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 359

Designating October 16, 2000, to October 20, 2000, as ``National Teach 
                          For America Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2000

 Mr. Schumer submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Designating October 16, 2000, to October 20, 2000, as ``National Teach 
                          For America Week''.

Whereas while the United States will need to hire over 2,000,000 new teachers 
        over the next decade, Teach For America has proven itself an effective 
        alternative means of recruiting gifted college graduates into the field 
        of education;
Whereas in its decade of existence, Teach For America's 6,000 corps members have 
        aided 1,000,000 low-income students at urban and rural sites across the 
        United States;
Whereas Teach For America's popularity continues to skyrocket, with a record-
        breaking number of men and women applying to become corps members for 
        the 2000-2001 school year;
Whereas over half of all Teach For America alumni continue to work within the 
        field of education after their two years of service are complete;
Whereas Teach For America corps members leave their service committed to life-
        long advocacy for low-income, underserved children;
Whereas over 100,000 schoolchildren are being taught by Teach For America corps 
        members in 2000; and
Whereas October 16th through 20th will be Teach For America's fourth annual 
        ``Teach For America'' week, during which government members, artists, 
        historians, athletes, and other prominent community leaders will visit 
        underserved classrooms served by Teach For America corps members: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) commends the Teach For America program, and its past 
        and present participants, for its contribution to our Nation's 
        public school system;
            (2) designates the week beginning on October 16, 2000, and 
        ending on October 20, 2000, as ``National Teach For America 
        Week''; and
            (3) encourages Senators and all community leaders to 
        participate in classroom visits to take place during the week.
                                 <all>
```
#### Larry D. THOMAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-82-598.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 2, 1983.

*1070E. Alvin Schay, Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., Susan B. Agosta, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Okl., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Appellant, Larry D. Thomas, was charged, tried, and convicted in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CRF-80-255, of four (4) counts of Robbery with Firearms in violation of 21 O.S.1981, § 801. His punishment was fixed at fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment on each count, said sentences to be served consecutively, and he appeals, raising two (2) assignments of error.

On October 31, 1980, two armed men wearing ski masks robbed Payne’s Jewelry Store in Duncan, Oklahoma as well as three customers then in the store. Subsequently, witness Willie Mae Young was arrested when she attempted to use a credit card taken from one of the store’s customer’s during the robbery. Young later identified the appellant as one of the participants in the robbery.

On November 4, 1980, the appellant was stopped for speeding while travelling on Interstate 20 in Georgia. Thomas consented to a search of his vehicle, through which was discovered, among other items, two guns, two green ski masks, and a guantity of jewelry later identified as taken from the store and its customers during the October 31st robbery.

In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial judge communicated improperly with the jury in direct violation of 22 O.S.1981, § 894. However, in *Boyd v. State,*572 P.2d 276 (Okl.Cr.1977), this Court held that the error is harmless if the answer was reduced to writing in the presence of both counsel for the State and counsel for defense, at 280. We have before us affidavits of the prosecutor, defense counsel, and trial judge, all of which state that the prosecutor and defense counsel knew of the communication, and thereafter assisted in formulating the written supplementary instruction. Consequently, the rule in *Green v. State,*281 P.2d 200 (Okl.Cr.1955), upon which appellant relies, is not applicable here.

In his second assignment of error, appellant contends that the imposed punishment is excessive. We note that this claimed error was not preserved properly in appellant’s motion for new trial. We find appellant’s argument that a codefendant’s sentence of five (5) years’ probation clearly calls for a modification of his sentence to be without merit. *Lee*v. *State,*637 P.2d 879 (Okl.Cr.1981). Moreover, as the sentence is within the statutory framework, we cannot say that under the facts and circumstances of this case, that said sentence shocks the conscience of the Court. *Wade v. State,*556 P.2d 275 (Okl.Cr.1976).

For the above reasons, the judgment and sentence appealed from is AFFIRMED.

CORNISH and BRETT, JJ., concur.
|   | 1. | I      am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Neurogen Corporation      (the "Company"). |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | To      the best of my knowledge: |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------|

|   | a. | The      Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008      accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and      Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the      "Exchange Act"); and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b. | The      information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of the    Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Date: March 27,      2008 | By:      /s/ Stephen R. Davis              |
|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                            | Stephen      R. Davis                      |
|                            | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|                            |                                       |
|                            |                                       |
|                            |                                       |
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 361 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 361

To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate Rules and 
                                Manual.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 26 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

Mr. McConnell submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
               the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate Rules and 
                                Manual.

    Resolved, That (a) the Committee on Rules and Administration shall 
prepare a revised edition of the Senate Rules and Manual for the use of 
the 106th Congress.
    (b) The manual shall be printed as a Senate document.
    (c) In addition to the usual number of documents, 1,400 additional 
copies of the manual shall be bound of which--
            (1) 500 paperbound copies shall be for the use of the 
        Senate; and
            (2) 900 copies shall be bound (500 paperbound; 200 
        nontabbed black skiver; 200 tabbed black skiver) and delivered 
        as may be directed by the Committee on Rules and 
        Administration.
                                 <all>
```
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 391

To commend the exemplary leadership of the Majority Leader.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 15 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. NICKLES, and Mr. REID) submitted the

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To commend the exemplary leadership of the Majority

Leader.

1 Resolved, That the thanks of the Senate are hereby

2 tendered to the distinguished Majority Leader, the Sen3 ator from Mississippi, the Honorable Trent Lott, for his

4 exemplary leadership and the cooperative and dedicated

5 manner in which he has performed his leadership respon6 sibilities in the conduct of Senate business during the sec7 ond session of the 106th Congress.

Æ
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA-2011-1068; 2010-NM-189-AD

Service Documents
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San A ntonio, Texas

April 1, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00689

- CR

Julio Jeconiah TORRES

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR13039

Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The

appellant ’ s brief is deemed ti mely filed.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the sa id

court on this 1st day of April, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz

, Clerk of Court