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

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27468]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 208 / Thursday, October 26, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 64168]]

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 930

RIN 3206-AI08

Appointment, Pay, and Removal of Administrative Law Judges

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management is withdrawing its proposal 
to revise the regulations on the appointment, pay, and removal of 
administrative law judges (published February 23, 1998, 63 FR 8874). 
The proposal contained several major revisions concerning the 
administrative law judge program. Because we plan to make additional 
changes to these regulations, we will publish a revised proposal and 
invite a new public comment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanita Love on (202) 606-0810.

Office of Personnel Management
Janice R. Lachance,
Director.
[FR Doc. 00-27468 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-P
```
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Brian R. Ervine,certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Evolving Systems, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 (b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 15, 2007
| /s/ Brian R. Ervine                                   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Brian R. Ervine                                       |   |   |
| Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |   |   |

 

----
**Exhibit 23.2**

** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-143366, 333-38858 and 333-67297) of AXT, Inc. of our reports dated April 5,2009 and April 11, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statementsof Xilingol Tongli Germanium Co. Ltd and Emeishan Jia Mei High PurityMetals Co., Ltd., as of December 31, 2008 and for the year thenended respectively, which appear in this Amendment No. 1 to the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of AXT, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2008.

 

/s/ Beijing Topson Co.,Ltd.

 

Beijing, ChinaApril 11, 2009

 

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 2062

WENGUI GUO, a/k/a Miles Kwok , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
YELIANG XIA , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O’Grady , Senior District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv - 00174

- LO

- TCB )

Submitted : June 30, 2022 Decided: July 29, 2022

Before WYNN , THACKER , and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Ning Ye, LAW OFFICE OF NING YE, Flushing, New York, for Appellant. J. David Morrissy, ZEICHNER ELLMAN & KRAUSE LLP, Washington, D

. C

. , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 19-2062 Doc: 66 Filed: 07/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Yeliang Xia appeals the district court’s order entering judgment on the jury verdict in favor of Wengui Guo on Guo’s claims of defamation and defamation per se against Xia , in favor of Xia on Xia’s defamati on counterclaim against Guo , and in favor of Guo on Xia’s defamation per se counterclaim against Guo . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment

. Guo v. Xia , No. 1:18

- cv - 00174

- LO

- TCB (E .D. Va. filed Sept. 12, 2019 & entered Sept. 13, 2019) . We deny Xia’s motion for oral argument and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 19-2062 Doc: 66 Filed: 07/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3094 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction for 

qualified tuition and related expenses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses. 

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 ‘‘Tuition Relief for Stu5 dents Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED TUI7 TION AND RELATED EXPENSES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 222(e) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘December 

10 31, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2017’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3094 IH

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

2 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 25, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1875 Lower Tribunal No. 19-5346

________________ 

### Susan Braun , Appellant,
vs. 

### Tracey Sager, et al. , Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Yvonne Colodny, Judge. Susan Braun, in proper person. Shevlin & Atkins, and Barry T. Shevlin and Scott E. Hayden, for appellee Jeff Braun; Gutter Chaves Josepher Rubin Forman Fleisher Miller P.A., and Sean M. Lebowitz (Boca Raton), for appellee Tracey Sager. Before LOGUE, HENDON, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1754

ANA L. CAUSSADE, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus JESSE BROWN, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95- 397-AMD) Argued: January 31, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: James Lester Kestell, KESTELL & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael P. Deeds, KESTELL & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia; Lawrence J. Sherman, DESO, THOMAS, SPEVAK, WEITMAN & ROST, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Ana Caussade claims that her employer, the Veterans Administration, violated her rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. , and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq . Caussade's claim is based on her allegation that she suffered an adverse employment action because of her age and Puerto Rican heritage. Caussade has worked as a nurse for the Veterans Administration in positions of increasing responsibility for over 20 years. Between 1989 and 1993, Caussade's relationship with her immediate supervisor deteriorated, and she was transferred to a differentposition within the same hospital. She claims that she was transferred to a position of less prestige and was no longer permitted to use her office. Nevertheless, she retained the same title, grade, salary, and level of responsibility. Finding no genuine issue of material fact, the district court entered summary judgment against Caussade. The court reasoned that she could not prevail because her reassignment did not constitute an adverse employment action. The reassignment was made during the course of a bona fide reorganization in which seven head nurses were reassigned, and the reasons for reassigning Caussade were not pretextual. Finding no reversible error, we affirm for reasons adequately stated in the district court's opinion.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7226

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOE LEWIS BLACKWELL, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

District Judge. (2:96-cr-00109-JAB-1)

Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joe Lewis Blackwell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas 

Barrett, Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joe Lewis Blackwell, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012). We have reviewed the record and 

find no abuse of discretion by the district court. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Blackwell, No. 2:96-cr-00109-JAB-1 (M.D.N.C. July 16, 

2013). We deny Blackwell’s motion for appointment of counsel, 

and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2737]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Panel for Neuroscience; 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: Advisory Panel for Neuroscience (1158).
    Date/Time: May 1-2, 2000; 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: Room 365, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Soo-Siang Lim, Program Director, Neuronal & 
Glial Mechanisms; Division of Integrative Biology and Neuroscience, 
Suite 685, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 306-1416.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Agenda: Open Session: May 1, 2000; 4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., to 
discuss goals and assessment procedures. Closed Session: May 1, 
2000; 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.; and 4:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. May 2, 2000; 8 a.m. 
to 5 p.m. To review and evaluate Neuronal Glial Mechanisms proposals 
as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: February 1, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Meeting Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-2737 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Exhibit 10.2


 


Summary of Director Compensation


 


Compensation for non-employee Directors is as follows:


 


1. Annual retainer - $9,600


2. Committee Member fee - $8,000


3. Committee Chairman fee - $16,000


 


All amounts are paid monthly on a pro rata basis. Directors living
outside the Tulsa area are reimbursed for their travel expenses related to
attending Board meetings and the Annual Shareholder Meeting.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2011-1231

Directorate Identifier: 2011NM088AD

737-78-1086, R1 --- 5/15/12

737-78-1086 --- 10/6/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30428 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL JOSEPH NOIL,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CR-240-L

- - - - - - - - - -

October 22, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Joseph Noil appeals his sentence after pleading

guilty to bank robbery and illegal use of a firearm in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 924(c)(1). Noil contends that he did

not have two prior felony convictions because his prior robbery

convictions were related as part of a single common scheme or

plan pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment.(n.3). We are not

persuaded. Noil’s prior convictions were not related as part of a

single common scheme or plan but were separate and distinct
No. 97-30428

-2-

offenses. See United States v. Ford, 996 F.2d 83, 85-86, 88 (5th

Cir. 1993)(drug sales occurring within a few days in the same

area not related); United States v. Garcia, 962 F.2d 479, 482

(5th Cir. 1992)(same).

AFFIRMED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3104 

To clarify the application of all laws, including the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act, to the Federal Government and Congress, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 

Mr. KINGSTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the 

Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To clarify the application of all laws, including the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act, to the Federal Government and Congress, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF GENERAL LAWS TO EXECU4 TIVE BRANCH AND CONGRESS. 

5 Congress and the Executive Branch are expressly and 

6 equally bound by any Federal law which is intended to 

7 be broadly enforced upon the American people. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3104 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO FEDERALLY FUNDED HEALTH CARE PREMIUM 

2 SUBSIDIES FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, 

3 THE PRESIDENT, AND OTHER CIVILIAN FED4 ERAL WORKERS UNTIL ACA IS FULLY RE5 PEALED. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), until 

7 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public 

8 Law 111–148) is fully repealed, a Member or employee 

9 of Congress, the President, the Vice-President, any em10 ployee of the Executive Office of the President, and any 

11 other civilian Federal worker is not eligible for any Feder12 ally funded health care premium subsidies. 

13 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 

14 the provision of a health care premium subsidy— 

15 (1) under title XVIII or XIX of the Social Se16 curity Act; 

17 (2) for coverage under a health care program 

18 under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code; or 

19 (3) for medical coverage under chapter 55 of 

20 title 10, United States Code, including coverage 

21 under the TRICARE program. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 210 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64648-64649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27404]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 85

[FRL-6892-1]
RIN 2060-AJ03


Amendments to Vehicle Inspection Maintenance Program Requirements 
Incorporating the Onboard Diagnostic Check; Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

[[Page 64649]]


ACTION: Reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This document reopens the public comment period for above-
named notice of proposed rulemaking, published Wednesday, September 20, 
2000, at 65 FR 56844-56856. The deadline for public comments is being 
reopened from the original deadline for public comments of October 20, 
2000, to November 13, 2000. This reopening is in response to a request 
received prior to the close of the original comment period.

DATES: Written comments must be received no later than November 13, 
2000.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in duplicate 
if possible) to Public Docket No. A-2000-16. It is requested that a 
duplicate copy be submitted to David Sosnowski at the address in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. The docket is located at 
the Air Docket, Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall S.W., Washington, DC 
20460. The docket may be inspected between 8:30 a.m. and 12 noon and 
between 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying docket material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Sosnowski, Office of Mobile 
Sources, Regional and State Programs Division, 2000 Traverwood, Ann 
Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone (734) 214-4823.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, 
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 85

    Environmental protection, Confidential business information, 
Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Research, Warranties.

    Dated: October 19, 2000.
Robert D. Brenner,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 00-27404 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### Robert Charles FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald BYRD, Chief of Police, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 76-2644

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 16, 1976.

*195Robert Charles Ford, pro se.

John L. Hill, Átty. Gen., Thomas W. Choate, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Kendall Jr., First Asst. Atty., Austin, Tex., for defendants-appellees.

Before AINSWORTH, GODBOLD and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc.*v. *Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

This is a § 1983 suit by a Texas state prisoner. The District Court dismissed it without prejudice to the filing of a habeas corpus petition.

Insofar as plaintiff seeks relief from confinement he must proceed by habeas corpus. The prosecuting attorney1 and the state trial judge who sentenced plaintiff are immune from § 1983 suits.

Plaintiff questions the validity of the search of his car by two police officers. That issue was decided adversely to plaintiff by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. We pretermit whether that holding collaterally estops the plaintiff in the present case.2 The officers who conducted the search are not named as parties. The chief of police is named, but he is vicariously liable for the acts of his subordinates only if he directs, orders, participates in, or approves the acts. There is no claim he did so in this case,

a wron/nm

1

. The prosecuting attorney was not named as a defendant but was mentioned in the other papers filed by plaintiff as being a defendant. Out of caution, the habeas judge ruled as though the prosecuting attorney were a defendant.

2

. See *Brazell v. Adams,*493 F.2d 489 (CA5, 1974) (collateral estoppel applies, one of the reasons being that the bar of estoppel can always be raised by federal habeas), but see *Stone v.*Powell, — U.S. —, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976) (habeas is no longer available for a search and seizure claim if petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to raise it in state court).