alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 215 (Monday, November 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28436]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[30DAY-06-01]


Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a 
list of information collection requests under review by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call 
the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-7090. Send written 
comments to CDC, Desk Officer; Human Resources and Housing Branch, New 
Executive Office Building, Room 10235; Washington, DC 20503. Written 
comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

Proposed Project

Jail STD Prevalence Monitoring System--New--National Center for HIV, 
STD, and TB Prevention (NCHSTP)

    Proposes a 3-year clearance for data collection of the standardized 
record layout for the Jail STD Prevalence Monitoring System. This 
system consists of test data compiled for persons entering corrections 
facilities. The standard data elements were created in response to the 
need to systematically assess morbidity in persons entering corrections 
facilities who are at high risk for STDs and who often do not seek 
medical care in mainstream medical settings.
    Use of these standard data elements will improve surveillance of 
STDs by allowing for systematic assessment of a high risk population, 
taking advantage of already computerized data. States that compile data 
from corrections facilities are encouraged to participate in the 
system. The estimated annualized burden is 1248 hours.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Average Number     Number of     Average burden/
                 Respondents                     Number of        of forms/        responses/      response (in
                                                respondents       respondent       respondent         hrs.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State/local health departments..............              65               16                1              1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: October 30, 2000.
Kathy Cahill,
Associate Director for Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 00-28436 Filed 11-03-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### Storms, Appellant, *v.*The United Grain & Millworkers Union, Appellee.

(No. 28170

Decided June 12, 1940.)

*Messrs. Ratterman, Cowell $ Fletcher, Mr. Edgar L. Baird, Mr. Israel J. Horwits*and *Mr. J. Vincent Aug,*for appellant.

*Mr. David Howe,*for appellee.

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

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
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

DANIEL P. ALLEN,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY - EAST

and JOHN MARSHALL, Warden,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 08-55616

D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01168-RSWL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Daniel P. Allen appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

Allen contends that his due process rights were violated by the Board’s 2002

FILED

JUN 3 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-55616

decision finding him unsuitable for parole, because the decision was not supported

by evidence of current dangerousness. After briefing was completed in this case,

this court held that a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge

the denial of parole. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.

2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme Court has held that the only federal right at

issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what

process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. 

See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 (2011) (per curiam). Because Allen

raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, a COA cannot issue,

and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Further, because Allen has not has made a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. See id.

DISMISSED.
#### GUTHRIE v. STATE.

No. 26428.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 13, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Appellant waived a jury and entered his plea of not guilty before the court. He was found guilty and his punishment assessed at a fine of $50.

The record before us contains neither a statement of .facts nor bill, of exception, AH proceedings appear to be .regular.

The judgment is affirmed. •/
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       6,891,983
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,045,388
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                 19,244,006
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,683,304
<PP&E>                                      17,071,445
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,275,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,891,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,462,205
<BONDS>                                      6,380,417
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,038,965
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,010,519
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,891,586
<SALES>                                     25,742,628
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,742,628
<CGS>                                       12,174,519
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,573,023
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             594,327
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,591,349
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,996,130
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,595,219
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,595,219
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.94


</TABLE>
#### YOUNG v. STATE.

No. 26246.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 4, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was charged by indictment with the felony offense of driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated, after having been convicted oí the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated. He waived a jury and entered a plea of guilty, whereupon judgment was entered adjudging him guilty of the offense charged and fixing his punishment at a fine of $250.

Notice of appeal was entered upon the overruling of appellant’s ¡motion for new trial, but the record does not disclose that sentence has been pronounced.

The conviction being for a felony, an appeal does not lie until sentence has been pronounced. Art. 769, C.C.P.; Wilburton v. State, 77 Tex.Cr.R. 657, 179 S.W. 1169; Carlile v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 477, 262 S.W. 489; Garbs v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 234 S.W.2d 869.

The appeal is dismissed.
* 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. 07-50482

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN ISIDRO TELIZ-OCAMPO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-2521-ALL

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Isidro Teliz-Ocampo

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v.

Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug.

28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 215 (Monday, November 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28318]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, form, and OMB number: Non-Prior Service and Prior Service 
Accessions; AETC Forms 1319, 1325, and 1419; OMB Number 0701-0079.
    Type of request: Extension.
    Number of respondents: 110,231.
    Responses per respondent: 1.
    Annual responses: 110,231.
    Average burden per response: 37 minutes (average).
    Annual burden hours: 69,105.
    Needs and uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
for recruiters to determine applicant qualifications when conducting an 
interview. Information from the interview will determine if additional 
documents on law violations, citizenship verification, and education 
are needed. Applicants who have reached a certain age, marital status, 
or classification are required to submit financial information. 
Respondents are civilian non-prior and prior service personnel applying 
for enlistment into the Air force as enlisted members. The completed 
forms are used by the recruiter to establish the eligibility status of 
applicants.
    Affected public: Individuals or Households.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB desk officer: Mr. Edward C. Springer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Springer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD clearance officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: October 31, 2000.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-28318 Filed 11-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION  OF  PERIODIC  FINANCIAL  REPORT
(Pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002)

I,  R.  Llee  Chapman,  Chief  Financial Officer of Apollo Gold Corporation (the
"Company"),  do  hereby  certify  in  accordance  with  U.S. C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

     1.   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
     31,  2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
     hereof  (the  "Periodic  Report"),  fully complies with the requirements of
     Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
     and

     2.   The  information  contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
     all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the  Company.

Dated:  May  14,  2004


               /s/  R.  Llee  Chapman
               ------------------------------------
               R.  LLEE  CHAPMAN
               CHIEF  FINANCIAL  OFFICER


A  signed  original  of  this  written  statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act has been provided to the company and will be retained by the
company  and  furnished  to  the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon  request.  This written statement shall not be deemed to be "filed" as part
of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q that it accompanies.


<PAGE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC

Appellate case name: Carla Thomas and Eugene Thomas

Appellate case number: 01-15-01046-CV

Trial court case number: 1008525

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County

Date motion filed: July 24, 2017

Party filing motion: Appellants

It is ordered that the motion for reconsideration en banc is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack 

 Acting Individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Higley, Bland, Massengale, 

Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey.

Date: January 11, 2018
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of PDI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bernard C. Boyle,
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.


/s/ Bernard C. Boyle
--------------------

Bernard C. Boyle
Chief Financial Officer
March 10, 2003
#### THOMPSON et al. v. SMITH et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 10, 1952.

Rodney J. Thompson, Winchester, for appellants.

Alton S. Payne, S. T. Davis, Winchester, for appellees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

Appellees brought suit to reform a deed. Instead of the conveyance being made to Arthur Smith and his wife for their joint lives with survivorship, the deed was made to Arthur Smith and “the survivor of him”. Because of this language, it was necessary that the infant child of the Smiths be made a party.

After some procedural difficulties, a guardian ad litem for the infant, who was under 14 years of age, was appointed. He was served with summons and entered the infant’s appearance in the case.

On this appeal the only point raised is that summons should have been served on the infant. Section 52(2) of the Civil Code of Practice provides that where the infant is under 14 years of age, the summons shall be served on the guardian ad litem. Service upon such infant is not only not required, but is ineffective. Kitchens v. Edwards, 207 Ky. 664, 269 S.W. 1022. The proceedings appear proper.

The judgment is affirmed.
|   | (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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |       |                       |                                    |   |
|-------------------------------|------------|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  May 12, 2011 | By:   | /s/ Richard Rosenblum |                                    |
|                          |       | Name:            | Richard Rosenblum                       |   |
|                          |       | Title:                | President (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|                          |       |                       |                                    |   |

| Date:  May 12, 2011 | By:   | /s/ Steven Berger |                                                                                          |
|------------------------------------|------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |       | Name:        | Steven Berger                                                                                 |   |
|                               |       | Title:            | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
|                               |       |                   |                                                                                          |   |
Exhibit 10.38


    
      

    


    BASE
      SALARIES FOR CERTAIN EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

    


    

      
        	
                Executive
                  Officer

              	 	
                Base
                  Salary

              	 
	
                 

              	       	
                 

              	 
	
                Robert
                  L. Long

              	 	
                $

              	
                750,000

              	 
	
                President
                  and Chief Executive Officer

              	 	 	
              	 
	
                 

              	 	 	
              	 
	
                Jean
                  P. Cahuzac

              	 	
                $

              	
                435,000

              	 
	
                Executive
                  Vice President, Chief Operating Officer

              	 	 	
              	 
	
                 

              	 	 	
              	 
	
                Gregory
                  L. Cauthen

              	 	
                $

              	
                360,000

              	 
	
                Senior
                  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

              	 	 	
              	 
	
                 

              	 	 	
              	 
	
                Eric
                  B. Brown

              	 	
                $

              	
                315,000

              	 
	
                Senior
                  Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary

              	 	 	
              	 
	
                 

              	 	 	
              	 
	
                Steven
                  L. Newman

              	 	
                $

              	
                265,000

              	 
	
                Senior
                  Vice President, Human Resources, Information Process Solutions
                  and
                  Treasury
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDTED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION
AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,714,189
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               33,809,465
<ALLOWANCES>                                   902,951
<INVENTORY>                                 34,943,871
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            73,778,768
<PP&E>                                      83,621,038
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,935,758
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             193,553,908
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       57,871,005
<BONDS>                                    125,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,487
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,220,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               193,553,908
<SALES>                                     61,637,868
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            61,637,868
<CGS>                                       47,049,974
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               47,049,974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,820,443
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,762,944
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                189,908
<INCOME-TAX>                                    71,066
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            118,842
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   118,842
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>