alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of a teleconference meeting of the Executive Committee National Science Board.

# AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: 

National Science Board.

# DATE AND TIME: 

Monday, January 7, 2012 from 2:00-2:15 p.m.

# SUBJECT MATTER: 

Review of Board member proposal requesting NSF funding.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# PLACE: 

This meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.

# UPDATES: 

                        Please refer to the National Science Board Web site                         *www.nsf.gov/​nsb*                         for additional information. Meeting information and schedule updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) may be found at                         *http://www.nsf.gov/​nsb/​notices/​.*

# AGENCY CONTACT: 

                        Dedric A. Carter, 703/292-8002, (                        *dacarter@nsf.gov*).                    

Ann Bushmiller,

NSB Senior Legal Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2013-00334 Filed 1-7-13; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### Sherwood Freedman, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., Defendant, and Lee Coppola, Appellant.

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant Coppola, an investigative television reporter, appeals from that portion of an order that denied his motion *1007to dismiss plaintiffs first cause of action alleging that defendant violated 42 USC § 1983. Defendant contends that the claim failed to state a cause of action.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated his civil rights by instigating baseless criminal charges against him and arranging for plaintiffs unlawful arrest by Town of Cheektowaga police as the denouement to one of defendant’s investigative reports. We conclude that the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action under section 1983. Addressing defendant’s specific challenges to the adequacy of the pleading, we find that it sufficiently implies a lack of probable cause and alleges a violation of plaintiffs constitutional right to be free from an illegal arrest. We also find that it sufficiently alleges that defendant jointly engaged with government officials in the prohibited action *(see, Adickes v Kress & Co.,*398 US 144, 152). Further, the complaint sufficiently alleges that the constitutional violation constituted, or resulted from, official policy or custom. In contrast to the cases relied upon by defendant *(see, e.g., Kolko v City of Rochester,*93 AD2d 977, 978), the complaint alleges more than mere negligence on defendant’s part. It alleges that defendant willfully participated in a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his civil rights. Finally, we find the decision in *Fitzpatrick v Wert*(432 F Supp 601, 603), relied upon by defendant, to be distinguishable from this case. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Carrington, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), rendered April 11, 1990, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Nicolai, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

*573Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The testimony adduced at the suppression hearing revealed that on the night of July 5, 1989, Police Officers Kwechin and Itzla were patrolling an area in Yonkers known for narcotics activity. The officers stopped at 288 Riverdale Avenue as a result of several complaints of loitering and possible drug activity at that location. Officers Kwechin and Itzla observed a group of people, including the defendant, standing in front of a cluster of buildings. They parked, and in full uniform, exited their marked patrol vehicle. As the officers approached, they observed the defendant throw a clear plastic bag to the ground and run into the building. Officer Kwechin quickened his pace and, as he passed the plastic bag on the sidewalk, he saw that it contained two powdery white rocks which he believed to be cocaine. Officer Kwechin then pursued the defendant to the third-floor landing where he detained him. In the meantime, Itzla retrieved the plastic bag and observed the white chunks which he also believed to be cocaine. He, too, pursued the defendant and joined Kwechin on the third floor where the defendant was subsequently arrested.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the police officers had an objective credible reason to approach him and their actions in attempting to do so were lawful *(see, People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210; *People v Torres,*115 AD2d 93, 96). In any event, we find that the defendant’s conduct in discarding the plastic bag containing cocaine constituted an abandonment *(see, People v Boodle,*47 NY2d 398, 404, *cert denied,*444 US 969; *People v Elliot,*162 AD2d 609; *People v Kosciusko,*149 AD2d 620; *People v Greaves,*123 AD2d 445; *cf., People v Howard,*50 NY2d 583, 593, *cert denied*449 US 1023). Moreover, the police officer’s testimony at the hearing was not inherently improbable or incredible so as to warrant this court to substitute its judgment for that of the Hearing Judge who saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761; *People v Laccone,*164 AD2d 897; *People v Amarillo,*141 AD2d 551; *People v Villanueva,*137 AD2d 852, 853; *People v Gee,*104 AD2d 561). Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
# L_2012112EN.01002101.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/6

---

ACT

ACT

concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

PART FIVE

PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT

PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT

TITLE II

APPLICABILITY OF THE ACTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS

APPLICABILITY OF THE ACTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS

Article 48

Provisions laid down by legislation, regulation or administrative action designed to ensure the protection of the health of workers and the general public in the territory of Croatia against the dangers arising from ionising radiations shall, in accordance with Article 33 of the EAEC Treaty, be communicated by Croatia to the Commission within three months from accession.

---
All Data from EIA Monthly Biodiesel Reports

http://www.eia.gov/biofuels/biodiesel/production/

20092010201120122013 2014 January 110 89 February 110 97 March 110 104 113 93 April 105 114 96 May 105 116 94 June 151 104 110 93 July 103 111 92 August 105 110 100 September 140 105 111 101 October 107 112 99 November 112 112 100 December 122 103 112 115 99 Year Month Number of Biodiesel Producers Operating
#### Frank MARRONE, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 3504.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

July 28, 1978.

*675Larry Bunn, Legal Intern, Sue Ellen Tatter, Asst. Public Defender, Brian C. Shorten, Public Defender, Anchorage, for appellant.

Glen C. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anchorage, Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before BOOCHEYER, C. J., and RABI-NOWITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In our decision in *Marrone v. State,*458 P.2d 736 (Alaska 1969), the issues presented here were raised and ruled upon. The superior court’s denial of postconviction relief was proper under our previous decision in this case.

The judgment is affirmed.

RABINOWITZ, Justice,

concurring.

Although I agree with the conclusion that the superior court’s disposition should be affirmed, I have reservations concerning the appropriateness of announcing our decision by employing a short form memorandum opinion.

In the instant appeal, appellant Frank Marrone has raised two issues. First,’ he contends that his Alaska sentence for murder in the second degree should be held to run concurrently with the concurrent life sentences he received in California for kidnapping and conspiracy to commit kidnapping. Secondly, appellant argues that he should be given credit on his Alaska sentence for the time he served in California on the concurrent life sentences.

In my view, the first issue was adequately treated in *Marrone*v. *State,*458 P.2d 736 (Alaska 1969). As to the second issue, this was discussed in our previous decision only to the extent that we declared that the superior court’s sentence which made Mar-rone’s Alaska sentence run consecutively to the California sentences was not cruel and unusual punishment. It is this sentence credit issue which I think is deserving of fuller treatment. Nevertheless, I can agree to this court’s sustaining the superior court’s rejection of Marrone’s arguments. For in my view, the provisions of AS 11.05.-040(a)1 bar granting the credit Marrone seeks. Additionally, sentencing criteria articulated in State v. *Chaney,*477 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1970), and its progeny preclude retroactive credit for the time Marrone served in California.

1

. 11.05.040(a) provides:

*Computation of term of imprisonment and stay.*' When a person is sentenced to imprisonment, his term of confinement begins from the day of his sentence. A person who is sentenced shall receive credit toward service of his sentence for time spent in custody pending trial or sentencing, or appeal, if that detention was in connection with the offense for which sentence was imposed. The time during which the person is voluntarily absent from the penitentiary, reformatory, jail, or from the custody of an officer after his sentence, shall not be estimated or counted as a part of the term for which he was sentenced.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Ortiz, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered March 31, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. It is well settled that "[w]hat constitutes effective assistance is not and cannot be fixed with yardstick precision, but varies according to the unique circumstances of each representation” *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 146). In resolving claims of ineffective assistance of counsel the critical issue is whether, viewed in totality, the defense counsel provided meaningful representation *(People v Benn,*68 NY2d 941; *People v Badia,*159 AD2d 577, 578; *People v Tippins,*173 AD2d 512).

The record demonstrates that defense counsel vigorously and effectively cross-examined the People’s witnesses, delivered opening and closing arguments which were consistent with his misidentification defense, raised appropriate objections, and presented a plausible defense. Thus, the defendant was provided with meaningful representation *(People v Benn, supra; People v Tippins, supra; People v Badia, supra).*

We also find that the defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
# California_county_differentials
**Exhibit32.2**

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

I, Raymond F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer, VicePresident, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary of Bridgford Foods Corporation(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)                  theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended November 3,2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and

(2)                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: February 1, 2007 |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
|                    | /s/    RAYMOND F. LANCY        |
| ** **              | **Raymond  F. Lancy** |
| ** **              | **Chief  Financial Officer, Vice President** |
| ** **              | **Treasurer  and Assistant Secretary** |
| ** **              | **(Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)** |

 

1

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Bernadette B. Wilson, Acting Executive Officer on (202) 663-4077.

 Dated: April 18, 2012. 

 Bernadette B. Wilson,

 Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 2012-9796 Filed 4-19-12; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       8,317,713
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,680,329
<ALLOWANCES>                                   146,288
<INVENTORY>                                  7,655,130
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,487,661
<PP&E>                                       4,225,435
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,356,523
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,973,933
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,577,220
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       177,023
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,074,316
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,973,933
<SALES>                                     13,694,022
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,694,022
<CGS>                                        7,074,103
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,604,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,089,195
<INCOME-TAX>                                   397,520
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            691,675
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   691,675
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40716

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR ARMANDO GIMENEZ-MARTINEZ, also known as Oscar Armando 

Jimenez-Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-784-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar Armando 

Gimenez-Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gimenez-Martinez has filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40716 Document: 00513009528 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2015
No. 14-40716

reflected therein, as well as Gimenez-Martinez’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-40716 Document: 00513009528 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2015
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

September 10, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-61069

Summary Calendar

ESSA GYE,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A76-301-663

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Essa Gye, a native and citizen of Gambia, petitions for review

of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming

the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding Gye removable for

falsely claiming United States citizenship. Gye argues that there

is no evidence in the record to show that he claimed to be a United

States citizen, as opposed to a United States national, when he

checked the “citizen or national” box on the Employment Eligibility1 S ee Lopez De Jesus v. INS

, 312 F.3d 155, 158-59 (5th Cir.

2002); Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS

, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).

2 Verification (I-9) form. However, Gye has not shown that the

evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that of the IJ. 1

Accordingly, Gye’s petition for review in DENIED.
#### John O. GRANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 3997.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Nov. 30, 1979.

*1250Carney W. Mimms, III, Nangle, Clark & Mimms, Anchorage, for appellant.

Leonard M. Linton, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Larry R. Weeks, Dist. Atty., Anchorage, Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BOOCHEVER, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted on a plea of guilty to one count of armed robbery (AS 11.15.240). He was sentenced to a ten year prison term. He was 29 years old at the time the offense was committed. He has a lengthy criminal record extending back to the age of 18, including eight convictions for burglary and two escapes. He was a parole violator and an escapee from the State of Oregon at the time the present offense was committed.

The appellant is addicted to heroin, and the trial court recommended that he be placed in an institution where drug rehabilitation programs were available, and that should he be released on parole, the parole be conditioned upon the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program. It is clear that the superior court adequately considered rehabilitation in imposing sentence.

We are convinced that the superior court was not clearly mistaken. The judgment is AFFIRMED. *McClain v. State,*519 P.2d 811 (Alaska 1974).
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 1885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00334]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


National Science Board; Sunshine Act Meetings; Notice

    The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR 
part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), 
hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of a teleconference 
meeting of the Executive Committee National Science Board.

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: National Science Board.

DATE AND TIME: Monday, January 7, 2012 from 2:00-2:15 p.m.

SUBJECT MATTER: Review of Board member proposal requesting NSF funding.

STATUS: Closed.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the 
National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.

UPDATES: Please refer to the National Science Board Web site 
www.nsf.gov/nsb for additional information. Meeting information and 
schedule updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) may 
be found at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/.

AGENCY CONTACT: Dedric A. Carter, 703/292-8002, (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#482c292b293a3c2d3a08263b2e662f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d595c5e5c4f49584f7d534e5b135a524b">[email protected]</span></a>).

Ann Bushmiller,
NSB Senior Legal Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2013-00334 Filed 1-7-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


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