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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, to consider the following matters:

*Summary Agenda:*                     No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.                

                    Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' meetings.                          ( print page 66248)    

Summary reports, status reports, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors.

*Discussion Agenda:*

*Memorandum re:*                     BIF Assessment Rates for the First Semiannual Assessment Period of 2001.                

*Memorandum re:*                    SAIF Assessment Rates for the First Semiannual Assessment Period of 2001.                

The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550—17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

                    The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (                    *e.g.,*                     sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call (202) 416-2089 (Voice); (202)416-2007 (TTY), to make necessary arrangements. Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at (202)898-6757.                

Dated: October 31, 2000

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-28308  Filed 10-31-00; 4:07 pm]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2227

_____________________________

MILENA ALVAREZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

David Rimmer, Judge.

June 8, 2018

PER CURIAM.

 Appellant challenges on appeal the revocation of her 

probation and the resulting judgment and sentence for the 

original offenses of organized fraud and fraudulent use of a 

credit card. 

 The order revoking probation is remanded for correction 

of a clerical error regarding admissions by Appellant. The 

corrected order should reflect that Appellant was found in 

willful violation of her probation for failure to pay restitution 

and costs as ordered, upon the evidence presented at the

probation revocation hearing. Upon remand for this 

correction, Appellant need not be present. Knight v. State, 
2

114 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). In all other respects, 

the judgment, sentence, and order on appeal are affirmed.

 

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Jason Cromey, Pensacola, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### ELLIFF v. STATE.

No. 23020.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 10, 1945.

J. M. Parker, of Gorman, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged with the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in a dry area and assessed a fine of $400.

The Sheriff of Comanche County, in company with a representative of the Liquor Control Board, obtained from the Justice of Peace a search warrant for the purpose of searching the two-room residence of appellant and his wife. When they reached the house no one was at home but the door was unlocked and they entered, first finding one pint of whisky, and then, after the arrival of appellant’s wife, they found nine pints of whisky secreted over a window. The whisky was introduced in evidence over the objection of defendant, as shown by bill of exception '#1. The objection was made on the ground that the affidavit for the search warrant was insufficient, that it did not show the time of the possession of the liquor and by whom it was possessed, “and that said objection was made to all of the evidence offered on the grounds of the insufficiency of the affidavit and the search warrant, and that the evidence was illegally obtained.” We do not find the affidavit for the search warrant in the record and are unable to appraise the objection so made. Furthermore, we can not say that all of the evidence objected to would be-controlled by an improper affidavit because we are not able to determine just what evidence is included in that objection, nor do-*623we know what the court’s ruling would have been had the objections been made separately to each item.

The second bill of exception complains of argument of the County Attorney which, if made as stated in the bill, would appear to constitute error. However, the court qualified the bill by saying that no such statement was made but that the attorney did say:, “If the defendant did not have the whisky in his house for the purpose of sale why did he have it concealed in a place where it took the officers fifteen minutes to locate it. One who has legitimate liquor in one’s house is not apt to keep it in a well concealed place.” This does not constitute a reference to the failure of the party on trial to testify in his own behalf and appears to be legitimate argument based on the evidence in the record.

Finding no error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,795
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,535
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,900
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     25,170
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          39,479
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            39,338
<LOANS>                                        208,270
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 293,257
<DEPOSITS>                                     248,816
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,277
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           532
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,633
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 293,257
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,181
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,229
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,410
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,387
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,409
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,001
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   8
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,998
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,277
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,277
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,683
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .93
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.67
<LOANS-NON>                                         51
<LOANS-PAST>                                       328
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   113
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,378
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       26
<RECOVERIES>                                        11
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,393
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,393
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0



</TABLE>
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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of PDI, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.










Date: January 28, 2011                                                                                     /s/ Jeffrey E. Smith


Name: Jeffrey E. Smith


Title: Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J AM ES DA LT ON BE LL , D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 30216 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 0 - c r - 0 5 7 3 1 - RBL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R ona l d B . L e i ght on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M ay24, 2011 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , T H O M A S , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J a m e s D a l t on B e l l c ont e nds tha tthe 24- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d upon r e v o c a tio n o f

s up e rv is e dr e le a s e v io la te dh is r ig h ts to du e p r o c e s s a n daju rytr ia l. W e d i sm i ss. W e w i l l notr e vi e w the m e r i t s of B e l l ’ s c ont e nt i ons be c aus e the 

# FI LED JU N 07 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 30216 2 “ i nt er l ocut ory not i ce of appeal ” ( “N O A ”) do es no tm ent i on the se nt ence , w hi ch w as i m po se d si x d ay s a ft erthe N O A w as fi l ed, and n o sub se qu entN O A w as ever f ile d . See F ed. R . A pp . P . 3(c) (1)( B ); 4(b)(1)(A ) and (b)( 2). DI S MI S S E D.
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 133

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the printing as a House document of

late Justice Thurgood Marshall.a collection of statements made in tribute to the
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 133

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That a collection of statements made in trib3 ute to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, together with

4 related materials, shall be printed as a House document,

5 with illustrations and suitable binding. The collection shall

6 be prepared under the direction of the Joint Committee

7 on Printing.

8 SEC. 2. In addition to the usual number, there shall

9 be printed the lesser of—
2

•HCON 133 EH

1 (1) 50,000 copies (including 1,000 casebound

2 copies) of the document, of which 33,440 copies (in3 cluding 440 casebound copies) shall be for the use

4 of the House of Representatives, 7,600 copies (in5 cluding 100 casebound copies) shall be for the use

6 of the Senate, and 8,960 copies (including 460

7 casebound copies) shall be for the use of the Joint

8 Committee on Printing; or

9 (2) such number of copies of the document as

10 does not exceed a total production and printing cost

11 of $66,988, with distribution to be allocated in the

12 same proportion as described in paragraph (1), ex13 cept that in no case shall the number of casebound

14 copies be less than one per Member of Congress.

Passed the House of Representatives September 27,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 215 (Monday, November 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28335]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel Teleconference Review of R25 
application.
    Date: December 6, 2000.
    Time: 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5E01, Rockville, MD 20852 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Jon M. Ranhand, PhD, Scientist Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health, and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 
5E03, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301)435-6884.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 30, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-28335 Filed 11-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
TO: 

ATTN: 

Rulemaking Cover Sheet 

Secretary of State 

Administrative Procedure Officer, 

101 SHS, Augusta ME 04333 

1. Agency: Department of Environmental Protection 

2. Agency umbrella and unit number: 06-096 

3. Title of rule: Surface Coating Facilities 

4. Chapter number assigned to the rule: 129 

5. Dates/methods of notice: January 14, 2015 

6. Date/place of hearing: none 

2015-120 

ACCEPTED FOR 

FlUNG 

JUL -2 2015 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

7. Type: new rule X partial amendment(s) of existing rule 

suspension of existing rule repeal of rule emergency rule 

Ll repeal and replace (complete replacement of existing chapter, with former version 

simultaneously repealed) 

8. Name and phone of agency contact person: Tom Graham 207-287-7598 

9. If a major substantive rule under Title 5, c. 375, sub-CII-A, check one of the following 

0 provisional adoption (prior to Legislative review) 0 final adoption 

0 emergency adoption of major substantive rule 

10. Certification Statement: I, Patricia W. Aho, hereby certify that the attached is a true copy of the 

rule described above and lawfully adopted by the Department of Environmental Protection June 2, 

2015. I further certify that all portions of this rule are adopted in compliance with the requirements 

11. 

of th~ Maine = ~rocedure ~ 

Srgnaturer' _____rj.j;tW 1/J_ ,IJJlJJ.J 

Printed name & title: Patricia W. Aho, Commissioner 

Approved as to form and legality by the Attorney General on fo/ '2 1 (;) 

Signature 

(origiri'aiSigl1lltUft;,Jersali)JSiglled 

~ an Assistant Attorney General) 

Printed Name: --'..l--""'--=- tii: "'-"-= -=7) ------=.-.::..L.. ,-_..~/....:..._----' YI--='----

EFFECTIVE DATE: JUL - 7 2015 

RECEIVED 

JUL 0 2 

OFFiCE OF SECRETARY OF STATE 

AUOOSTA, MA!NE
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 101

Concerning the twenty-sixth anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 12, 1993

Mr. SCHUMER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Concerning the twenty-sixth anniversary of the reunification

of Jerusalem.

Whereas for three thousand years Jerusalem has been the

focal point of Jewish religious devotion;

Whereas Jerusalem is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths;

Whereas the once thriving Jewish majority of the historic Old

City of Jerusalem was driven out by force during the

1948 Arab-Israeli War;

Whereas from 1948 to 1967 Jerusalem was a divided city

and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens

of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area

controlled by Jordan;

Whereas in 1967 Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict

known as the Six Day War;
2

HCON 101 IH

Whereas since 1967 Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel and persons of all religious faiths have

been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city;

Whereas this year marks the twenty-sixth year that Jerusalem has been administered as a unified city in which the

rights of all faiths have been respected and protected;

Whereas in 1990 the United States Senate and House of

Representatives overwhelmingly adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 and House Concurrent Resolution

290 declaring that Jerusalem, the capital of Israel,

‘‘must remain an undivided city’’;

Whereas subsequent statements by the Government of the

United States, including support for United Nations Security Council Resolutions 681 and 726, have raised understandable concern in Israel that Jerusalem might one

day be redivided and access to religious sites in Jerusalem denied to Israeli citizens of all faiths and Jewish citizens of other states; and

Whereas such concerns inhibit and complicate the search for

a lasting peace in the region: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) congratulates the residents of Jerusalem

4 and the people of Israel on the twenty-sixth anniver5 sary of the reunification of that historic city;

6 (2) strongly believes that Jerusalem must re7 main an undivided city in which the rights of every

8 ethnic and religious group are protected as they
3

HCON 101 IH

1 have been by Israel during the past twenty-six years;

2 and

3 (3) calls upon the President and the Secretary

4 of State to issue an unequivocal statement in sup5 port of these principles.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7654

PAUL MITCHELL BURGESS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; WALTER WHITMAN,

Superintendent of Adult Correctional Institution; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of the Department of Corrections for the State of North

Carolina; SUPERINTENDENT CLARK,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-95-283-3-MU-2)

Submitted: March 6, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Mitchell Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Ledford Cheek,

Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Mitchell Burgess appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Burgess v. North Carolina, No.

CA-95-283-3-MU-2 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2000). 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
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The Honorable Barbara M. Lynn, U.S. District Judge for the Northern **

District of Texas, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RHONDA WILKINSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 07-15627

D.C. No. CV-05-01803-JCM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 10, 2009

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, District ** 

Judge.

Appellant, Rhonda Wilkinson, appeals the district court’s entry of summary

judgment in her case alleging sexual harassment and unlawful retaliation during

her employment by the Clark County School District. 

FILED

JAN 04 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Appellant alleged that the conduct of one of her coworkers was so severe

and pervasive that it created a hostile work environment. See Porter v. Cal. Dep’t

of Corr., 419 F.3d 885, 892 (9th Cir. 2005). While some of the conduct

complained of was unwelcome and sexual in nature, it was not so severe as to

constitute a hostile environment. See id. Summary judgment was appropriate.

The retaliation claim is founded upon her permanent transfer to a different

facility involving allegedly poor working conditions and reduced responsibilities. 

The transfer followed a threat by her direct supervisor that she would not have a

career with the District if she pursued a harassment claim. This is indicative of an

unlawful retaliatory motive. See Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement

& Power Dist., 272 F.3d 1136, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2001). The employer claimed the

transfer was motivated by concerns for the appellant’s safety, so there are material

issues of fact. Summary judgment was not appropriate on the retaliation claim.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part and REMANDED. Each party

to bear its own costs.