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

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 77613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31347]

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Sunshine Act Notice--Amended

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

DATE AND TIME: Friday, December 17, 2010; 11:30 a.m. EST.

PLACE: Via Teleconference, Public Dial In: 1-800-597-7623, Conference 
ID: 31039129.

Meeting Agenda

    This meeting is open to the public.
I. Approval of Agenda
II. Welcome New Commissioners
III. Management and Operations:
     Review of transition, order of succession, continuity of 
operations.
     Review of 2011 meeting calendar.
     Staff Director's report.
IV. Program Planning: Update and discussion of projects.
     Cy Pres.
     Disparate Impact in School Discipline Policies.
     Gender and the Wage Gap.
     Title IX--Sex Discrimination in Liberal Arts College 
Admissions.
     Eminent Domain Project.
     NBPP.
V. State Advisory Committee Issues:
     Update on status of North Dakota, Illinois and Minnesota 
SACs.
     Update on Vermont SAC.
VI. Approval of Minutes of December 3, 2010 Meeting
VII. Announcements
VIII. Adjourn

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, 
Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591. TDD: (202) 376-8116.
    Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an 
interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Pamela Dunston at 
least seven days prior to the meeting at 202-376-8105. TDD: (202) 376-
8116.

    Dated: December 9, 2010.
David Blackwood,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-31347 Filed 12-9-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**The Board of DirectorsAMERIGROUP Corporation:We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-37410 onpost effective amendment No. 1 to Form S-1, in the Registration Statement No. 333-109134 on FormS-8, in the Registration Statement No. 333-125033 on Form S-8, and in the Registration StatementNo. 333-123269 on Form S-3 of AMERIGROUP Corporation of our reports dated February 24, 2006 withrespect to the consolidated balance sheets of AMERIGROUP Corporation as of December 31, 2005 and2004, the related consolidated income statements and statements of stockholders’ equity and cashflows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005 the related financialstatement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 Annual Report onForm 10-K of AMERIGROUP Corporation.February 28, 2006Norfolk, Virginia
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45996

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

ANTHONY LEWIS RATLIFF

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: February 7, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Peter G. Barton , District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appell ant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Anthony Lewis Ratliff pled guilty to domestic violence in the presence of a child . Idaho

Code § § 18

- 918(2), 18

- 903(a), 18

- 918(4) . The district court sentenced Ratliff to a unified term

of ten years with five years determinate and retained jurisdiction. Subsequently, the district court

relinquished jurisdiction

. Ratliff filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court

denied. Ratliff appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by faili ng to reduce

his sentence

. Although Ratliff received the sentence he asked for, he asserts that the district court erred

in denying his Rule 35 motion . The doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from

asserting an error when his or her own cond uct induces the commission of the error. State v.2 Atkinson , 124 Idaho 816, 819, 864 P.2d 654, 657 (Ct. App. 1993). One may not complain of

errors one has consented to or acquiesced in. State v. Caudill , 109 Idaho 222, 226, 706 P.2d 456,

460 (1985); Stat e v. Lee , 131 Idaho 600, 605, 961 P.2d 1203, 1208 (Ct. App. 1998). In short,

invited errors are not reversible. State v. Gittins , 129 Idaho 54, 58, 921 P.2d 754, 758 (Ct. App.

1996). This doctrine applies to sentencing decisions as well as rulings made during trial. State v.

Griffith , 110 Idaho 613, 614, 716 P.2d 1385, 1386 (Ct. App. 1986).

Therefore, because Ratliff received the sentence he requested, he may not complain that

the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, the district court ’s order denying Ratliff’s

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

1:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 24, 2024.

# PLACE: 

The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

# STATUS: 

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

                        In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at                         *https://www.sec.gov.*

The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.

The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;

Resolution of litigation claims; and

Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b)

      ( print page 84230)    
Dated: October 17, 2024.

Vanessa A. Countryman, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-24401 Filed 10-17-24; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1100

ELLIS S. FRISON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PRESTIGE FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION;

PRESTIGE MORTGAGE CORPORATION; STERLING BANK,

FSB; MARAGARETTEN & COMPANY, INCORPORATED;

CHEMICAL MORTGAGE COMPANY; CHEMICAL RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY; CHASE MANHATTAN

MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-96-744-A)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 21, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ellis S. Frison, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Zelnick, SZABO,

ZELNICK & ERICKSON, P.C., Woodbridge, Virginia; Bernard Joseph

DiMuro, DIMURO, GINSBERG & LIEBERMAN, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia;

Traci Helene Mundy, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, McLean, Virginia,

for Appellees.
* In its final order dismissing the action, the district court

also denied Appellant's supplemental claims for trespass and to add

his wife as a party, and his motion for a temporary injunction.

Appellant also appeals the district court's revised order entered

on November 21, 1996, the previous order entered November 13, which

was revised, and a prior order entered August 26, 1996. Like the

final order, we affirm the November 13 and 21 orders on the

reasoning of the district court. We deny relief on the August 26

order because we find no reversible error in the claims dismissed

by the district court and because Appellant was granted leave to

and did file an amended complaint.

2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's final order dismissing

his civil action and related orders.* We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Frison

v. Prestige Financial Servs. Corp., No. CA-96-744-A (E.D. Va. Aug.

26, 1996; Nov. 13 & 21, 1996; Jan. 10, 1997). We deny the "motion

for declaratory judgment and restitution" and 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1


                  Flexpoint Sensor Systems, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of Flexpoint Sensor Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
that:

a.    the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b.    the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.



Date:   November 12, 2004                /s/ John A. Sindt
                                       ____________________________________
                                       John A. Sindt
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       Principal Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 85578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24942]



[[Page 85578]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12569]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Pirouette: Turning Points in 
Design'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Pirouette: Turning Points in 
Design'' at The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of 
cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or 
display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#53203630273a3c3d6167666a1320273227367d343c25"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="56253335223f39386462636f16252237223378313920">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 
2021.

Nicole L. Elkon,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2024-24942 Filed 10-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Carpenter Baking Company, Respondent, vs. Bakery Sales Drivers Local Union No. 344 (A. F. of L.) and others, Appellants.

*March 14*

October *7, 1941.*

*369For the appellants there were briefs by *Padway, Goldberg & Tarrell,*and oral argument by *I. E. Goldberg*and *David Previant,*all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent there were briefs by *Shaw, Muskat & Paulsen*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Martin R. Paid-sen.*

The following memorandum was filed June 25, 1941:

PER Curiam.

Upon this appeal Mr. Justice Fowler, Mr. Justice Fairchild, and Mr. Justice Martin are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed. Mr. Chief Justice Rosenberry, Mr. Justice Fritz, and Mr. Justice Wickhem are of the view that the judgment should be reversed. This situation necessarily results in affirmance of the judgment appealed from. *Zohrlaut v. Mengelberg,*148 Wis. 592, 134 N. W. 1135.

Judgment affirmed.

The following memorandum was filed October 7, 1941:

Per Curiam

*(on motion for rehearing.)*Mr. Justice Fowler, Mr. Justice Fairchild, and Mr. Justice Martin are of the view that the findings of fact of the lower court are not against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.

Mr. Chief Justice Rosenberry, Mr. Justice Fritz, and Mr. Justice. Wickhem are of the contrary view.

The motion for a rehearing is denied with $25 costs.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 19587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID DoD-2014-OS-0049]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Defense Information Systems Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to delete a System of Records Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Information Systems Agency is deleting a system of 
records notice in its existing inventory of record systems subject to 
the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The notice is entitled ``K890.10, 
Joint Enterprise Directory Services (JEDS)''.

DATES: Comments will be accepted on or before May 9, 2014. This 
proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the 
comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary 
determination.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by any of the following methods:
    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    * Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center 
Drive, East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general 
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is 
to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet 
at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, 
including any personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanette Weathers-Jenkins, 6916 Cooper 
Avenue, Fort Meade, MD 20755-7901, or (301) 225-8158.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Information Systems Agency 
systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 
552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are 
available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the 
Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Web site at http://dpclo.defense.gov/.
    The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) 
of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires 
the submission of a new or altered system report.

    Dated: April 4, 2014.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

Deletion:
    K890.10, Joint Enterprise Directory Services (JEDS) (January 31, 
2008, 73 FR 5825).
    Reason: Based on a recent review of DISA systems of records 
K890.10, Joint Enterprise Directory Services (JEDS) (January 31, 2008, 
73 FR 5825), was decommissioned in September 2013; any new records are 
now covered by the DMDC 02 DoD, Defense Enrollment Eligibility 
Reporting System (DEERS) (November 21, 2012, 77 FR 69807) and therefore 
can be deleted.

[FR Doc. 2014-07932 Filed 4-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
EX-10.9
                                    PROMISSORY NOTE

                                     EVERLERT, INC.
                                      PROMISSORY NOTE

Amount  $65,000.00                                       Date:October 6, 2001


     Everlert, Inc. a Nevada Corporation ("Maker"), promises to pay
to the order of Safe At Home Products, Inc. at 1201 East Warner Ave.,
Santa Ana, CA 92705, or such place as may be designated in writing by
holder or its assigns, the principal sum of $65,000.00, with interest
thereon from this date, until fully paid. Payment shall be in the
form of restricted Everlert Common shares at the rate of $.0667 per
share. This Note is non-interest bearing. Maker and Holder may be
independently referred to hereinafter as "Party" or collectively
referred hereinafter as the "Parties"). Such principal and interest
shall be due and payable at the designated address of Holder one (1)
year from the date of this Promissory Note (the "Note").

     Terms and Conditions

1.  Note is due and payable twelve (12) months from the date
unless converted to Common Stock in Everlert, Inc.

This Note has been executed and delivered in the State of California
and shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of
the state of California.

MAKER: EVERLERT, INC.                HOLDER: Safe At Home Products, Inc.


By: /s/  James J. Weber              By: /s/  James J. Weber
Name: James J. Weber                 Name: James J. Weber
Title: President                     Title: President

This Date: October 6, 2001           This Date: October 6, 2001
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 14, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 14, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0178. DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al. v. APD SOLUTIONS, LLC et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 15CV2974
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May 18,

2012

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00484

- CV

IN RE WENDY OXMAN , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 257 th District Court Harris, County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009

- 75384 

### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On May 17, 2012 , relator Wendy Oxman filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator ask s this c ourt to compel the Honorable Judy Warne, presiding judge of the 257th District Court of Harris C ounty to vacate the portion of her order requiring relator to vacate the property at 8622 Fountainbleu

. On May 14, 2 012, the respondent signed an “Order on Enforcement of Property Division and Counterclaims.” In that order, the court denied relator’s petition for2

enforcement of property division and ordered relator to vacate the premises known as the “Fountainbleu Home ” no later than May 20, 2012 , before 5:00 p.m. Relator seeks relief from this order via mandamus.

Mandamus relief is available when the trial court abuses its discretion and there is no adequate remedy at law, such as by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co

. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004); In re Dana Corp ., 138 S.W.3d 298, 301 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) ( citing Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding)). A party affected by a divorce decree that provides for the division of property may request enforcement of that decree by filing a suit to enforce in the court that rendered the decree. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.001(a). An order to enforce the division of the property is limited to an order to assist in the implementation of or to clarify the prior order. Id

. § 9.002. Orders issued in a suit to enforce are final judgments. DeGroot v. DeGroot , 260 S.W.3d 658, 664 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, no pet.). The order of enforcement is reviewable by appeal; therefore, mandamus relief is not available.

Relator ha s not established entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus and also deny relator’s request to stay proceedings

. PER CURIAM

Panel consi sts of Justices Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Boyce and McCally.