alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23630-23631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9586]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, and 54

[WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-109, 12-23 and CC Docket No. 96-45; Report 
No. 2948]


Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Advancing 
Broadband Availability Through Digital Literacy Training, et al.

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) 
have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding concerning 
rules that comprehensively reform and modernize the Lifeline program to 
strengthen protections against waste, fraud and abuse; improve program 
administration and accountability; improve enrollment and consumer 
disclosures; initiate modernization of the program for broadband; and 
constrain the growth of the program.

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed by May 7, 2012. 
Replies to an opposition must be filed May 15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Scardino or Garnet Hanly, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, (202) 418-1500 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of Commission's document, 
Report No. 2948, released April 5, 2012. The full text of this document 
is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street 
SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). The 
Commission will not send a copy of this Notice pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Notice 
does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.
    Subject: Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Advancing 
Broadband Availability through Digital Literacy Training, et al., 
published at 77 FR 12952, March 2, 2012 in WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-
109, 12-23 and CC Docket No. 96-45, and published pursuant to 47 CFR 
1.429(e). See 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 8.


[[Page 23631]]


Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2012-9586 Filed 4-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7454

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ELTON WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-04-106-3-MBS; CR-02-505-DWS)

Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elton Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Todd Hagins, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Elton Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district

court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                           8,527
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,726
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     86,207
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               190,681
<PP&E>                                          65,186
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,560
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 231,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,079
<BONDS>                                         43,203
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,089
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,516
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   231,101
<SALES>                                        266,003
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               266,003
<CGS>                                          178,940
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  178,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,032
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,083
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,777
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,306
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,306
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.39
        

</TABLE>
no. INH07Q-IO

U petJtiTIONER

VS. §

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS, §

RESPONDENT § CRIMINAL APPEALS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PDR

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

Comes now, CcyW^WIcxX 1, Petitioner, and files this motion for an

extension ofsixty- (60) days inwhich to file a Petition for Discretionary Review. Insupport ofthis

motion, Petitioner shows the Court the following:

I.

The Petitioner was convicted in the |)<-/4Va District Court of ,Smv\rT\ County,

Texas ofthe offense of HUfr X^ ArfT fVvfcMtU, kcftW'iTv in Cause No. 114MCT7Q-1Q,

styled The State ofTexas vs. CadV ISllV^LpcX The Petitioner appealed to the Court of

Appeals, V^.-VV\ Supreme Judicial District, Appeal No. \d> - l-^ ' OC)?>(n ?> ~GL •

The case was affirmed on KKa»fc)r\ VA , 7.0\5 •

II.

The present deadline for filing the Petition for Discretionary Review is /Wi\ 3, 2<3/S^

The Petitioner has not requested any extension prior to this request.

III.

Petitioner's request for an extension is based upon the following facts: Petitioner was not

informed ofthe decision ofthe Court ofAppeals in affirming his case until MOrcla ^,1^15 •

Since that time Petitioner has been attempting to gain legal representation in this matter. His

attorney on the appeal, ~0brr\eS XktftfAflT TV. , has informed Petitioner that he will not

represent himon the Petition forDiscretionary Review.

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

APR 13 2015

Abel Acosta, Cterk

IN THE TEXAS COURT

OF

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

APR 14 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Court grant this motion and extend the deadline for

filing the Petition for Discretionary Review in Cause No. HM-lClO ~ tO to

Respectfully submitted,

Petitioner Pro'

TDCJ# 12922 5-9

Texas DepartmentofCriminal Justice
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, CrO/ 'SzAh'^lOcK do hereby certify that atrue and correct copy ofthe above and

foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Discretionary Review, has been

forwarded byUnited States Mail, postage prepaid, first class, to the State Prosecuting Attorney,

P. O. Box 12405, Austin, TX 78711, and the District Attorney for f^NlrTrT County,

Texas on the 2TT day of VAft&.GlV , 20 tS
Ms. Louise Pearson, Clerk

Court ofCriminal Appeals

PO Box 12308

Austin, TX 78711

Dear Ms. Pearson:

Date: 3~V~ IS

Enclosed please find my pro se Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition

for Discretionary Review. Please file this Motion with the papers of this case and bring it to the

attention ofthe Court.

Please date-stamp this letter and return it to me at my address shown below.

I also request that you notify me ofthe Court's ruling on my Motion.

Sincerely,

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

APR 13 2015 loJw'&.

Petitioner Pro'Se

TDCJ# W2259

Texas Department ofCriminal Justice

Unit: Cd£<t(d

Address: ?U,I fM 2GZy

~7^n Cole**]!* 75ft?1/

REC'D IN COURT OF APPEALS]

12th Court of Appeals District

APR 0 6 2015

TYLER TEXAS

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK
poo

%

.rvi

3T

V)

.Ft!

o

o

o

on

^

J3?

i-V

S4 5

•<3

\£4

^^

c£

^

W

o

in

i •

••*

li":

(I)

CM

O

]-•

i.fi
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 2462 Dir ID: 2014 - NM - 224 - AD
#### CHRYSLER CREDIT CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Gilbert E. BURNS, Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff, Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. U. & S. MOTOR COMPANY, INC., a Utah Corporation, Third-Party Defendant, Respondent and Cross-Appellant.

No. 14640.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 22, 1977.

*234Willard R. Bishop, of Morris & Bishop, Cedar. City, for appellant.

Michael W. Park, Cedar City, for respondent.

WILKINS, Justice:

This case was before this Court on appeal and decided on October 29,1974. That decision is found in Utah, 527 P.2d 655 (1975), to which the reader is referred and in which it is stated:

> The judgment is reversed and the case remanded *with directions to order*a sale *of the trailer*and to determine the amount of deficiency, if any, together with attorney fees and costs, as prayed for in the complaint on file herein. No costs are awarded on appeal. [Emphasis added.]

After remand in this matter, U. & S. Motor Co. filed a motion in the District Court for a deficiency judgment of $517.00 and attorney’s fees of $473.13. Burns then filed a motion seeking a judgment of $1,457.00 against U. & S. Motor Co. for damages for failure to comply with the statutory procedures governing repossession and sale, viz., Sections 70A-9-504(3) and 70A-9-504(l), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, (Repl.Vol. 7B). The District Court in a judgment dated May 17, 1976, denied U. & S. Motor Co.’s claim for a deficiency but granted its claim for attorney’s fees. Said Court also denied Burn’s claim for damages. Burns appeals from the Court’s denial of his claim and the award of attorney’s fees; and U. & S. Motor Co. cross appeals from a denial of a deficiency judgment to it.

As noted above this Court remanded to the District Court “with directions to order a sale of the trailer”. The record on appeal shows no order for sale by said District Court, so we conclude no sale was ordered by the District Court as mandated by this Court. Further, the District Court in its judgment dated May 17,1976 stated that no notice of the time, date, place, and manner of sale was ever given to Burns by U. & S. Motor Co. as is normally required under statutory procedures mentioned supra.

The record in this matter, because of reasons advanced in comments previously made, demonstrates that the sale was not commercially reasonable. Therefore, we hold that U. & S. Motor Co.: is entitled to no deficiency judgment, as the District Court adjudged; and that it is entitled to' no attorney’s fees, as to which the District Court is reversed. We further hold that Burns is entitled to damages pursuant to Section 70A-9-507, U.C.A.1953, as amended, (Repl.Vol. 7B).

*235Remanded for further proceedings by the District Court not inconsistent with this opinion.

WE CONCUR:

ELLETT, C. J., and CROCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.

HALL, J., does not participate herein.
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-119 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 July 8, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Brush Meat Processors Black Angus Beef Program

G-119 Specification

1 REQUIREMENTS

Beef carcasses certified under this specification shall meet the following requirements:

a. Phenotypic or genotypic requirements of the American Angus Association’s (AAA) Live 

Animal Specification;

b. Are derived from livestock that are USDA, AMS Non-Hormone Treated Cattle (NHTC) 

program;

c. Classed as Steer or Heifer carcasses only1;

d. U.S. Prime, Choice, or Select and have a minimum marbling score of Slight 01

;

e. Less than 30 months of age with lean color, texture, and firmness, meeting the requirements for 

A maturity in the U.S. grade it qualifies for1;

f. Medium or fine marbling texture1,2

;

g. Moderately thick or thicker muscling and tend to be at least moderately wide and thick in 

relation to their length3;

h. No hump exceeding 2 inches in height4;

and

i. Practically free (not detracting from visual quality) of capillary rupture in the ribeye muscle.

2 CERTIFICATION

Carcasses to be examined for compliance with this specification shall be clearly identified and 

presented to an AMS grader for certification. Certification procedures for identification, the removal 

of preliminary identification marks (or other methods of control) from non-qualifying carcasses, and 

control of certified carcasses shall be in accordance with established Quality Assessment Division 

(QAD) procedures.

3 LABELING

Labeling of products derived from certified carcasses must follow Food Safety and Inspection Service 

regulations and policy guidelines and QAD procedures.

 1 Determined in accordance with the “Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef.” 2 Evaluated using the USDA-AMS-LS-SB-02 Marbling Texture card (included in the Official USDA Marbling Photographs.) 3 Muscle thickness is evaluated by averaging the thickness of the various parts, considering not only the proportion of each part of the 

carcass but also the general value of each part. Superior muscle thickness implies a high proportion of meat to bone and a high 

proportion of the weight of the carcass in the more valuable parts.

4 Measured from a line formed by the extension of the top line (including the fat) and measuring the lean muscle (excluding the fat) 

perpendicular to that line in the center of the hump.
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-119 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 July 8, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 2

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

4 FEES

The costs of all grading and certification services performed by an AMS grader involving 

examinations, supervision, official documentation, and related services shall be borne by the person, 

group, or plant requesting the service.

___________________________________

Chad Nelson, National Meat Supervisor

Quality Assessment Division

Livestock & Poultry Program
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

                                                                 Exhibit 27

                          Financial Data Schedule

THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MARKETING SERVICES GROUP, INC. AS OF AND
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1997  INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB/A AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
 <MULTIPLIER>                          1                     

       
<S>                         <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           Jun-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>              Jul-01-1996 
<PERIOD-END>                Jun-30-1997 
<CASH>                        2,929,012
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                 5,037,167
<ALLOWANCES>                    (32,329)
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              8,135,308
<PP&E>                        1,135,360
<DEPRECIATION>                 (389,577)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               25,391,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         6,473,874
<BONDS>                       5,761,584
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                        114,386
<OTHER-SE>                   13,571,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 25,391,272
<SALES>                      24,144,874
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             24,144,874
<CGS>                         5,587,343
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 5,587,343
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             22,131,362
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              529,521
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (5,267,723)
<INCOME-TAX>                   (109,373)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (5,377,096)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                 (5,377,096)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    (2.85)         
<EPS-DILUTED>                    (2.85)         
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9313]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES


Economic Impact Policy

    This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank of 
the United States has received an application to support the export of 
approximately $112 million in U.S. rail hardening and straightening 
equipment and services to Russia. The financed amount associated with 
the U.S. export contract is expected to total approximately $88 
million. The project will result in an increase in Russian rail 
production by 200,000 metric tons per year. Available information 
indicates that the Russian production is for domestic consumption only. 
Interested parties may submit comments on this transaction by email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2247414d4c4d4f4b410c4b4f5243415662475a4b4f0c454d54"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2643454948494b4f45084f4b5647455266435e4f4b08414950">[email protected]</span></a> or by mail to 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 
947, Washington, DC 20571, within 14 days of the date this notice 
appears in the Federal Register.

Angela Mariana Freyre,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-9313 Filed 4-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 10.4
                                                                    ------------




                              ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT


FAIRMOUNT CHEMICAL CO., INC. ("FMT") of 117 Blanchard Street, Newark, NJ 077105
hereby agrees to engage CREDITADE INTERNATIONAL, INC. (the "Company") of 352
Florida Hill Road, Ridgefield CT 06877 for the provision of the services of
Jerrel Branson for the period commencing 13 January 2002 and continuing for a
period of ninety (90) days thereafter for management and financial consultancy
services.

FMT shall pay to Company against invoice every second Monday commencing 13
January 2002 the amount of $3000.00 per week, in advance, by check.




                                                /S/ Glen da Mota
                                                ----------------------------
                                                Glen da Mota
                                                For and on behalf of the
                                                Board of Directors
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 Orsus Xelent Technologies,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with
the  Securities  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  Report),  I, Zhao
Hongwei, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  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) 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 result of operations of
          the Company.


                                                      By: /s/ Zhao Hongwei
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Zhao Hongwei
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                         May 18, 2006
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 34,128

5 BRENNAN SLADE, 

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY

8 Mark Terrence Sanchez, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

10 Margaret E. McLean, Assistant Attorney General 

11 Joel Jacobsen, Assistant Attorney General 

12 Santa Fe, NM

13 for Appellee

14 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender

15 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender

16 Santa Fe, NM

17 for Appellant

18 MEMORANDUM OPINION
2

1 BUSTAMANTE, Judge.

2 {1} Defendant appeals from the judgment and sentence setting forth his convictions

3 for the petty misdemeanor of concealing identity and for felony possession of a

4 controlled substance. [RP 99] Our second calendar notice proposed (1) to affirm

5 Defendant’s conviction for concealing identity, and (2) to reverse and remand for a

6 new trial for Defendant’s possession of a controlled substance conviction based on the

7 failure to instruct on the elements of the crime. In its response, the State provides that

8 it will not be filing a memorandum in opposition. 

9 {2} For the reasons detailed in our second notice, we affirm Defendant’s conviction

10 for concealing identity, and reverse and remand for a new trial for Defendant’s

11 conviction for possession of a controlled substance. 

12 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 

14 _______________________________________

15 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

16 WE CONCUR:

17 

18 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge

19 

20 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge