alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30938]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By notice dated August 14, 2000 and published in the Federal 
Register on August 23, 2000, (65 FR 51330), Applied Science Labs, Inc., 
A Division of Alltech Associates, Inc., 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, 
P.O. Box 440, State College, Pennsylvania 16801, made application by 
renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration to be registered as an 
importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed below:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heroine (9200).............................  I
Cocaine (9041).............................  II
Codeine (9050).............................  II
Meperidine (9230)..........................  II
Methadone (9250)...........................  II
Morphine (9300)............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The firm plans to import these controlled substances for the 
manufacture of reference standards.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in title 21, United States Code, section 823(a) and 
determined that the registration of Applied Science Labs, Inc., to 
import the listed controlled substances is consistent with the public 
interest and with United States obligations under international 
treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this 
time. DEA has investigated Applied Science Labs, Inc., on a regular 
basis to ensure that the company's continued registration is consistent 
with the public interest. These investigations have included inspection 
and testing of the company's physical security systems, audits of the 
company's records, verification of the company's compliance with state 
and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. 
Therefore, pursuant to section 1008(a) of the Controlled Substances 
Import and Export Act and in accordance with title 21, Code of Federal 
Regulations, Sec. 1301.34, the above firm is granted registration as an 
importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed above.

    November 20, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-30938 Filed 12-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
EXHIBIT 32.1

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of ActiveCore  Technologies,  Inc.
formerly  IVP  Technology  Corporation  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the
period  ending  September  30, 2005 as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  each of the  undersigned  herby
certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section
906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  in his  capacity  as an officer of the
Company, 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  operation of the
Company.

Date: November 14, 2005          By:      /s/ Peter J. Hamilton
                                          ---------------------
                                 Name:    Peter J. Hamilton
                                 Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authentications,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signature
that  appears  in typed  form  within the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to ActiveCore Technologies,
Inc.  formerly IVP  Technology  Corporation  and will be retained by  ActiveCore
Technologies,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.


                                       52
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 August 20, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41548 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RUBEN LEONIDES-JAIMES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-182-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ruben Leonides-Jaimes appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being found in the United States, without permission, following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, Leonides-Jaimes argues that the district court erred by enhancing his base offense level sixteen levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii), based on a determination that his prior convictions for conspiring to transport and transporting aliens within the United States wereNo. 02-41548 -2- alien smuggling offenses. In United States v. Solis-Campozano , 312 F.3d 164, 167-68 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied , 123 S. Ct. 1811 (2003), this court held that the term “alien smuggling offense,” as used in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) includes the offense of transporting aliens within the United States. Accordingly, the district court did not err in sentencing Leonides-Jaimes under that guideline. Leonides-Jaimes also argues, for the first time on appeal, that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it treats a prior conviction for a felony or aggravated felony as a sentencing factor and not an element of an offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Leonides-Jaimes’s argument is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 239-47 (1998). Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 489-90 (2000), did not overrule that decision. See United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000) . The district court did not err in sentencing Leonides-Jaimes under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Leonides-Jaimes concedes that both of his appellate arguments are foreclosed. He raises the issues solely topreserve them for possible further review. Because LeonidesJaimes’s arguments are foreclosed, the district court has filed a motion requesting summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment. The motion is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOTITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AirNet Systems, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10–Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, William R. Sumser, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
|   | /s/ William R. Sumser                 |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                  |
|   | William R. Sumser                     |
|   |                                  |
|   | Title:   Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                                  |
|   | Date:   November 12, 2002        |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 233 (Monday, December 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75687-75688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30726]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-176-022]


Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America Notice of Proposed Change 
in FERC Gas Tariff

November 28, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 20, 2000, Natural Gas Pipeline Company 
of America (Natural) tendered for filing to be part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 260, to be 
effective November 22, 2000.
    Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to implement a 
negotiated rate transaction with Wise County Power Company, LP (WCPC) 
under Natural's Rate Schedule FTS pursuant to Section 49 of the General 
Terms and Conditions (GT&C) of Natural's Tariff.
    Natural concurrently tenders for filing with the Commission, by a 
separate filing in this docket, the Firm Transportation Negotiated Rate 
Agreement (Agreement) entered into by Natural and WPC. Natural states 
that the

[[Page 75688]]

Agreement does not deviate in any material respects from the applicable 
form of service agreement in Natural's Tariff. However, Natural submits 
the Agreement as an aid to Commission Staff because it provides a more 
detailed explanation of the transaction.
    Natural requests waiver of the Commission's Regulations, including 
the 30-day notice requirement of Section 154.207, to the extent 
necessary to permit the tariff sheet to become effective November 22, 
2000, consistent with Section 49.1(e) of the GT&C of Natural's Tariff.
    Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its 
customers, interested state commissions and all parties set out on the 
Commission's official service list in Docket No. RP99-176.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30726 Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### PINER v. STATE.

No. 3725.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

July 14, 1938.

Floyd E. Ryan, of Greenville, for appellant.

L. D. Hartwell, County Attorney, of Greenville, for appellee.

HIGGINS, Justice.

This is a suit by the State of Texas against R. G. Piner, Jr., to enjoin the defendant from unlawfully practicing medicine. At the conclusion of the evidence an “instructed verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff and judgment rendered in accordance therewith. The record contains no bill of exception nor statement of facts. Appellant’s assignments of error complain of the peremptory charge and of a ruling upon evidence. In the absence of a statement of facts it must be assumed the undisputed evidence warranted the peremptory charge; and, in the absence of a bill of exception covering the matter, this Court cannot consider the assignment complaining of the ruling upon evidence.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1290 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1290

                 For the relief of Kumi Iizuka-Barcena.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 2009

  Mr. Reyes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 For the relief of Kumi Iizuka-Barcena.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR KUMI IIZUKA-BARCENA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Kumi Iizuka-Barcena shall 
be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of 
status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Kumi Iizuka-Barcena enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she 
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Kumi Iizuka-Barcena, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
                                 <all>
```
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1405 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Head Start teachers 

the same above-the-line deduction for supplies as is allowed to elementary 

and secondary school teachers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2009 

Mr. WILSON of Ohio 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 allow Head 

Start teachers the same above-the-line deduction for supplies as is allowed to elementary and secondary school 

teachers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HEAD START TEACHERS ALLOWED ABOVE-THE4 LINE DEDUCTION FOR SUPPLIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 62(d) of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining eligible edu7 cator) is amended by adding at the end the following new 

8 subparagraph: 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1405 IH

1 ‘‘(C) HEAD START TEACHERS.—The term 

2 ‘eligible education’ includes, with respect to any 

3 taxable year, an individual who is a teacher or 

4 aide under a Head Start program operating 

5 under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et 

6 seq.) for at least 700 hours during a school 

7 year.’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years ending after 

10 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

11:00 a.m., Friday, December 8, 2000.

# PLACE: 

1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference Room.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Surveillance Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 00-30856  Filed 11-30-00; 10:46 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

JOHN M. O’CONNOR, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General of Oklahoma, and

STEVE KUNZWEILER, in his official 

capacity as District Attorney for District 14 of 

Oklahoma (Tulsa County)

Plaintiffs,

v.

HERIBERTO TELLEZ, in both his official 

capacity as Regional Director of the South 

Central Region of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

and his individual capacity, 

COLETTE S. PETERS, in both her official 

capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons, and her individual capacity,

S.R. GRANT, in both his official capacity as 

Acting Complex Warden of FCC Pollock, and 

his individual capacity, and 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendants.

Civil Action No: 7:22-cv-00108-O

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF COURT ORDER

As instructed by this Court’s Order of October 25, 2022 (ECF No. 7), Plaintiffs have provided 

a copy of that Order to Defendants. When serving the lawsuit to the Office of the United States 

Attorney for the Northern District of Texas (USAO) on October 25, 2022, counsel alerted Daryl 

Caldwell—the Deputy Administrative Officer for the USAO—that the Order to Expedite Briefing 

had been granted. Counsel followed up with emails to Scott Hogan—the First Assistant United States 

Attorney for the Northern District—and Mr. Caldwell on October 25th and October 26th that 

Case 7:22-cv-00108-O Document 8 Filed 10/26/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 93
2

contained the ECF Notice for this Court’s Order as well as a PDF of the Order itself. Mr. Hogan 

acknowledged receipt of both the Order and the other pleadings in the case on October 26, 2022. He 

indicated that the government will respond accordingly.

October 26, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John C. Sullivan

John C. Sullivan

S|L LAW PLLC

Texas Bar Number: 24083920

610 Uptown Blvd., Suite 2000

Cedar Hill, TX 75104

Phone: (469) 523-1351

Facsimile: (469) 613-0891

john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com

Bryan Cleveland*

 Chief, Reserved Powers Protection Unit

Will Flanagan*

 Assistant Solicitor General

OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE

313 NE 21st Street

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Phone: (405) 521-3921

bryan.cleveland @oag.ok.gov

*pro hac vice motion forthcoming

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 7:22-cv-00108-O Document 8 Filed 10/26/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 94
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this document is being filed on the docket of the case via ECF and will 

be emailed to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas as Defendants have not 

yet had counsel make an appearance in the case.

/s/ John C. Sullivan

John C. Sullivan

Case 7:22-cv-00108-O Document 8 Filed 10/26/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 95
#### WOODRUM et al. v. MICHIGAN REALTY CO.

No. 13772.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

May 27, 1938.

Rehearing Denied June 24, 1938.

James E. Mercer and Richard Owens, both of Fort Worth, for appellants.

Raymond E. Buck and Victor C. McCrea, both of Fort Worth, for appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

Appellee brought suit against appellants (who are husband and wife), three counts appearing in the petition: (1) Trespass to try title; (2) for a deficiency judgment on a note which had been secured by a deed of trust lien on certain real property, said lien having been foreclosed under the power expressed in the deed of trust by the Trustee’s Sale, and the purchase price being alleged as a credit on the debt; and (3) for debt on the original note and foreclosure of the deed of trust lien.

Appellants answered and the only defense shown is that plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the four year statute of limitations. Vernon’s, Ann.Civ.St. art. 5520.

The following appears from the record: Plaintiff’s counsel took an interlocutory judgment against appellant, Woodrum, for the deficiency judgment, and later took a judgment simply in trespass to try title, and appellants’ counsel “okeyed” such judgment. It was signed by the trial judge and delivered to the clerk for record.

Shortly thereafter appellants’ counsel filed a motion for a new trial (it is not in the record before us), and later amended such motion. In the amended motion nothing is presented to disclose an equitable ‘reason to set the “okeyed” judgment aside, except the theory that “the cause of action” was barred by limitations.

A hearing was had on this motion and the only evidence introduced was the oral testimony of one counsel for appellants and one counsel' for appellee.

If appellee’s counsel detailed the facts as they' existed at all times, the statute of limitations was and is no defense to the count in trespass to try title, to the count for a deficiency judgment, or to the count for the whole debt and foreclosure of the deed of trust lien.

The trial court must have been conversant with the facts and must have believed the testimony offered by appellee’s counsel. He overruled the motion for a new trial and the cause was appealed to this court.

Appellants’ counsel introduced no facts even tending to show -that any count sued upon was barred by limitations.

The judgment must be affirmed as it does not appear that any’ different judgment could be rendered at another trial. Furthermore, we are inclined to the opinion that when the sale was made by the trustee, under the authority given in the deed of *456trust, and appellants made no effort to prevent the sale, after having due notice thereof, dhe defense of the statute of limitations having run against the debt and lien is not now available.

It is to be noted that no attack has been made on the sale because of any irregularity, or omission, or defect that could affect its legality.

The judgment is affirmed.