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

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 35945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14753]

[[Page 35945]]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, July 13, 2012.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered

    Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the event that the times 
or dates of these or any future meetings change, an announcement of the 
change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted 
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-14753 Filed 6-13-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MeriStar
Hospitality Corporation (the Issuer) for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Paul W. Whetsell, Chief Executive Officer of the
Issuer, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
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 (15 U.S.C 78m
or 78o(d)); and
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer.
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 12, 2003

/s/ Paul W. WhetsellPaul W. WhetsellChief Executive OfficerMeriStar Hospitality Corporation
NO. 07

- 11

- 00412

- CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B OCTOBER 26 , 2011

WILLIE EARL JOHNSON , APPELLANT

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE

FROM THE 278TH DISTRICT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY; NO. 11

- 11499

- 278

- 8 ; HONORABLE VANN CULP , JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Willie Earl Johnson , filed a notice of appeal on September 8 , 2011, challenging his conviction and sentence in trial court cause number 11

- 11499

- 278

- 8

. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant was convicted of the offense of aggravated robbery, and sentenced to 25 years in carceration on June 17, 2011 . We d ismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
In a criminal case in which no motion for new trial is filed, the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the date sentence is imposed in open court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a). The time within which t o file the notice may be enlarged if, within 152

days after the deadline for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3. Under these rule s, appellant's notice of appeal was due to be filed on July
1 8 , 20 11 , 1 but was not filed with the trial court clerk until September 8 , 2011, over a month outside the fifteen

- day extension period.
A notice of appeal which complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure is essential to vest this Court with jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 209

- 10 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, this Court does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal, an d can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Id . at 210.
We acknowledge that a ppellant may be entitled to an out

- of

- time appeal by filing a post
- conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; however, the a vailability of that remedy is also beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. 2 See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.07, § 3 (West Supp. 2010); Ex parte Garcia , 988 S.W.2d 240, 241 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999).

1 Thirty days from the date that sentence was imposed would be July 17, 2011. However, because July 17 was a Sunday, the deadline extends to the next day on which the Court was open. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4.1(a).

2 We note that the certification of defenda nt’s right of appeal filed in this cause indicates that it “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal

. ” In addition, the clerk’s record contains a written waiver of appeal signed by the defendant. Thus, even if appellant is granted an out
- of

- time appeal in this case, the case will be subject to dismissal if a certification that shows that appellant has the right of appeal is not made part of the record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d).3

Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for want of ju risdiction.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73497-73501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20280]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List (``SDN List'') based on OFAC's determination that one or 
more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are 
blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in 
transactions with them.

DATES: See Supplementary Information section for effective date(s).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Lisa M. Palluconi, Acting 
Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, 
tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-
2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or 
the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 
202-622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website (https://www.treasury.gov/ofac).

Notice of OFAC Actions

    On September 4, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following 
persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed 
below.

[[Page 73498]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10SE24.000


[[Page 73499]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10SE24.001


[[Page 73500]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10SE24.002


[[Page 73501]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10SE24.003


    Dated: September 4, 2024.
Lisa M. Palluconi,
Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of 
the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2024-20280 Filed 9-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
**Exhibit 31.1**
**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
I, Edward G. Newman, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Xybernaut Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
May 7, 2004
XYBERNAUT CORPORATION /s/ EDWARD G. NEWMANEdward G. NewmanChief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board of Directors
Allonge to Promissory Note



 Exhibit 10-1 
 ALLONGE TO PROMISSORY NOTE 
 THIS ALLONGE, made as of November 13, 2008 by Pineapple House of
Brevard, Inc a Delaware corporation (the “Borrower”) and consented to by The Goldfield Corporation and Southeast Power Corporation (collectively the “Guarantor); is to be attached to and made a part of that certain Promissory Note
dated November 18, 2005, made by Borrower to Branch Banking and Trust Company (the “Lender”) in the principal amount of Fourteen Million and No/100 Dollars ($14,000,000.00) (the “Note”) which Note is as therein set forth.

 WHEREAS, there is due and owing under the above-described Note the principal sum of $3,442,438.52; and there remains fourteen Million and
no/100 Dollars ($14,000,000.00) available on this line of credit 
 WHEREAS, Borrower and Lender desire to amend the Note. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Promissory Note dated November 18, 2005 is amended as follows: 
 REPAYMENT. Interest only on the outstanding principal balance of the Note shall be payable monthly, commencing December 18, 2008 and continuing on the same day each and every consecutive month thereafter
until May 18, 2010 on which date the entire principal sum outstanding under this Note plus accrued interest shall become due and payable (the “Maturity Date”). 
 All other terms and conditions of said Promissory Note remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this document the year first above written. 
  

									
	 	 	 	 	 	 	BORROWER:
		 		 		 	Pineapple House of Brevard, Inc
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ STEPHEN R. WHERRY

		 		 		 		 	Stephen R. Wherry, Senior Vice President
			
	GUARANTOR:	 		 	GUARANTOR:
	The Goldfield Corporation	 		 	Southeast Power Corporation
					
	By:	 	 /s/ STEPHEN R. WHERRY
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ STEPHEN R. WHERRY

		 	 Stephen R. Wherry, Senior Vice President
	 		 		 	Stephen R. Wherry, Treasurer
		 		 		 	LENDER:
		 		 		 	Branch Banking & Trust Co
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ BARRY FORBES

		 		 		 		 	Barry Forbes
#### PLAINVIEW BUILDING & LOAN ASS’N v. ROBBINS et al. GUARDIAN TRUST CO. v. TURNER et al. BROUSSARD et al. v. BEAUMONT PETROLEUM SYNDICATE et al. MURPHY v. PHILLIPS et al. CHRISTIAN v. JONES. ROGERS v. JONES. KNOX et al. v. MORRISON et al. ADREAN et al. v. JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. et al. COWEN et al. v. RABEL et al. ORIVE et al. v. A. J. RABEL et al.

Nos. 6556, 6584, 6612, 6629, 6646, 6647, 6677, 6695, 6700, 6701.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 16, 1934.

O. D. Russell, of Plainview, for appellant.

J. W. Faulk, of Plainview, for appellee.'

Walter H. Walne and Baker, Botts, Andrews & Wharton, all of Houston, for appellant.

John & Levy, A. M. John, and Sam W. Levy, all of Houston, for appellee.

Lipscomb & Lipscomb, of Beaumont, for plaintiffs in error.

Oliver J. Todd, of Beaumont, for defendant in error.

J. R. Norvell and Kelley, Looney & Nor-vell, all of Edinburg, for plaintiff in error.

G. F. Dohm, of Mission, for defendants in. error.

John J. Pichinson and Fred H. Woodard, both of Corpus Christi, for plaintiff in error.

*93John O. North, of Corpus Ohristi, for defendant in error.

James A. King, of Austin, for plaintiff in error.

Terrell, Davis, Hall & Clemens, of San Antonio, for defendants in error.

A. K. Black, of Brownsville, for plaintiffs in error.

Seabury, George & Taylor and V. W. Taylor, all of Brownsville, and A. J. Rabel, of Harlingen, for defendants in error.

Raphael Cowen, of Brownsville, for plaintiffs in error.

A. J. Rabel, of Harlingen, and Seabury, George & Taylor, of Brownsville, for defendants in error.

PER OURIAM.

This cause was brought under the terms of, and for the purpose of obtaining relief under, chapter 102, Acts of the Regular Session of the 43d Legislature, which became effective May 1, 1933 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 2218b). The act by its terms is effective in no event beyond May 1,1934. Since the statute is no longer operative, the cause is deemed moot, and is, for that reason, dismissed ; and any injunctive or restraining order heretofore entered by this or'any lower court is hereby dissolved.

The views of Chief Justice CURETON, concurring in the dismissal of the cause, are expressed in a memorandum this day filed.

CURETON, Chief Justice

(concurring).

I concur in the dismissal of the above-named eases, not because I think they are moot, for as to that I am not convinced, but because I am of the opinion that the statute under which the actions were brought is vio-lative of sections 16 and 19 of article 1 of the Constitution of Texas, which render void any law impairing the obligation of contracts.

I refrain from elaborating my views at the present time, for the reason that it is quite likely that cases involving a somewhat similar constitutional question may be presented to this court under another and more recent legislative enactment, relating to the same subject as the statute which was made the basis of action in the cases named above.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 12, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1470

Lower Tribunal No. 20-4141

________________

Carlos Montiel, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Francisco Aracena, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan Fine, 

Judge.

Dorothy G. Negrin, P.A., and Dorothy G. Negrin, for appellants.

Law Offices of Jonathan A. Heller, P.A., and Jonathan A. Heller, for 

appellee Above Ground Level Aerospace Corp.

Before SCALES, HENDON and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Attachment 1

Response to NRDC FOIA Request FOIA

- HQ

- 2014

- 001290 March 7, 2014

On August 8, 2013 EPA asked the following question of nine companies in the HCFC

- 22 market. While only a limited number of entities, this group comprises allowance holders as well as others that have a significant role in the HCFC

- 22 market :

Please provide t he number of pounds (or kilograms) of virgin and reclaimed HCFC

- 22 (not including HCFC

- 22 produced for use as a feedstock) owned and held in inventory in the United States by your company as of the 31 st of December in the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. Please also include inventory that was held off

- site on your behalf. Do not include inventory that was on your property but owned by another entity.

Aggregate data f

rom the nine companies’ responses:

Amount of virgin HCFC

- 22 owned and held in inventory (as of December 31 of each year) in metric tons (MT) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

57,867 61,461 63,071 61,857 50,997
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7525** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ANTHONY WAYNE MANGUM , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Distric t of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00058

- NCT

- 1; 1:09

- cv 00817

- NCT

- PTS )

Submitted : April 27, 2012 Decided: May 8, 2012

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un p ublished per curiam opinion
. Anthony Wayne Mangum, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anth ony Wayne Mangum seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief o n the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Coc krell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a consti tutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mangum has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argumen t because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance





Exhibit 10.1




FOURTH AMENDMENT OF

AMENDED AND RESTATED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT




This Fourth Amendment of the Amended and Restated Participation Agreement (the “Amendment”) is
made and entered into as of this 1st day of August, 2005, by and between and Union Bank and Trust
Company, a Nebraska banking corporation and trust company, solely in its capacity as trustee of
various grantor trusts known as Short Term Federal Investment Trusts or other grantor trusts
(“Union Bank”) and National Education Loan Network, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Nelnet”).



WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into that certain Amended and Restated Participation
Agreement dated as of June 1, 2001, as amended (the “Agreement”), and the parties hereto wish to
amend the Agreement under the terms set forth herein.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants herein
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:



1. Definitions. Unless otherwise expressly stated herein, capitalized terms in this
Amendment shall have the same meanings given to them in the Agreement.



2. Change in Definition of Nelnet’s Fee. For purposes of Section 1.03 of the
Agreement, Nelnet’s Fee shall be defined to equal the difference between (i) the total of interest
received with respect to such Eligible Loans contained in a participation certificate, and (ii) an
amount equal to 21 basis points (0.21%) above the average of the bond equivalent rates of the
quotes of 3-month commercial paper (financial) rates in effect for each of the days in such quarter
as reported by the Federal Reserve in Publication H-15 (or its successor) for the relevant 3-month
period, multiplied by the average aggregate principal balance of all Eligible Loans covered by said
participation certificate. Payments shall be distributed on a monthly basis, on the first business
day of each month.



3. Effect of Amendment. This Amendment shall be effective as of the date first set
forth above. Unless expressly modified or amended by this Amendment, all terms and provision
contained in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect without modification.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Union Bank and Trust Company	 	National Education Loan Network, Inc.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Ken Backemeyer
	 	By:
	 	/s/ Terry Heimes
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Title:

	 	Senior Vice President
	 	Title:
	 	Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 14
 
 PLM Financial Services Inc.
 Code Of Ethics
 
 The Board of Directors, Executive Officers and Employees of PLM Financial Services Inc., ("FSI or the Company") the General Partner of the Partnership, operate under a Code of Ethics that acknowledges and supports the integrity and values of the Company.
 
 The Code of Ethics ensures all issues are handled honestly and openly, including notification to the appropriate person or persons associated with the Company of any material transaction(s) or relationship(s) that could be expected to become a conflict and that any conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships are handled expediently and fairly. All Employees are provided with a clearly defined process to follow for any issues they feel are questionable or relate to possible wrongdoing without any fear of repercussion from Management.
 
 PLM Financial Services Inc. conducts its business within the framework of all applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations.
 
 The Code of Ethics is subject to periodic review by the Board of Directors to assure they continue to meet any modifications required by changes in regulations, the activities of the Company or to support the interests of the shareholders.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-13577

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 7:12-cr-00039-HL-TQL-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

OTTO G. PENA, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(August 19, 2014)

Before HULL, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-13577 Date Filed: 08/19/2014 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Martin J. Vogelbaum, appointed counsel for Otto Pena in this direct criminal 

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that 

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Pena’s conviction and sentence 

are AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-13577 Date Filed: 08/19/2014 Page: 2 of 2