alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 10a0335n.06

No. 06-1265

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

PATRICE DONALDSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE EASTERN

DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

PER CURIAM

BEFORE: KEITH, BOGGS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam. On October 24, 2001, Patrice Donaldson was convicted in federal court of

conspiring to distribute heroin and cocaine. Donaldson appealed his conviction, and in 2004 we

affirmed. See United States v. Donaldson, 110 F. App’x 603 (6th Cir. 2004). Donaldson then

moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for the court to vacate his sentence on the grounds of prosecutorial

misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. On December 2, 2005, the district court denied

Donaldson’s motion. The district court then issued a certificate of appealability only as to

Donaldson’s second claim, ineffective assistance of counsel, and not as to prosecutorial misconduct.

Donaldson asked us to enlarge the certificate of appealability, a request we denied. Donaldson

moved for reconsideration, and on March 7, 2008 we denied his motion, thus restricting Donaldson’s

appeal to the district court’s denial of his § 2255 motion on the grounds of ineffective assistance of

counsel.
No. 06-1265

Patrice Donaldson v. United States of America

- 2 -

“In reviewing the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, we apply a de novo standard of

review to the legal issues and uphold the factual findings of the district court unless they are clearly

erroneous.” Hamblen v. United States, 591 F.3d 471, 473 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Benitez v. United

States, 521 F.3d 625, 630 (6th Cir. 2008)). Having duly considered the arguments and the record,

we find Donaldson’s appeal to be meritless. As the district court noted in its December 2, 2005

opinion, in order to demonstrate that he was deprived of the right to effective assistance of counsel,

Donaldson must demonstrate both: (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) that such

deficient performance prejudiced the defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687

(1984). Donaldson claims that his counsel failed to object to alleged instances of prosecutorial

misconduct. In affirming his conviction, however, we explicitly found “no merit in [Donaldson’s]

claim of flagrant prosecutorial misconduct,” and concluded that “[Donaldson’s o]ther claims of

prosecutorial misconduct, including repeated use of leading questions and vouching for witnesses,

are without merit.” Donaldson, 110 F. App’x at 610, 610 n.3. As we have already rejected

Donaldson’s contention that his trial was marred by prosecutorial misconduct, Donaldson cannot

demonstrate that his counsel’s failure to object to the prosecution’s actions in any way prejudiced

his defense, and so cannot meet the second Strickland prong. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Donaldson’s motion to vacate his

sentence.
From: "Serne, Jim \(Raleigh,NC-US\)" <JSerne@TRCSOLUTIONS.com>

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Breisinger, Brian G." <Brian.Breisinger@alcoa.com>, "Palazzolo, Michael A." 

<Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com>

Date: 08/12/2010 11:36 AM

Subject: Alcoa Lancaster Test Schedule

Rochelle,

In response to your voice mail:

We plan to conduct the tests at the Alcoa Lancaster Chip Dryer during the week of 

August 23rd.

On Monday, the TRC crew will travel to Lancaster.

On Tuesday TRC will setup the equipment and if all goes smoothly, we may conduct one 

test run on Tuesday afternoon.

On Wednesday we hope to conduct two test runs.

If necessary we will conduct the third test run on Thursday, if we don’t get the third run 

finished on Wednesday.

If you come on Wednesday, you will see at least one of the test runs.

Please coordinate your visit with Brian Breisinger at the Lancaster facility. (717) 393-

9641 extn 1549.

Jim Serne, PE, QSTI

TRC Environmental Corporation

5540 Centerview Drive

Raleigh, NC 27606

(919) 256-6231

(919) 838-9661 (fax)
**SW-846 Update V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS - 1 Revision 1 July 2014**  **ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (O**  **RCR) thanks the following organizations and groups, whose individual’s effort**  **s, assistance and advice in the preparation of this manual were invaluable:** 

 **U.S. E.P.A. Regions I - X**  **U.S. E.P.A./ORCR Staff**  **U.S. E.P.A. SW-846 Work Groups**  **All Method Development Chemists/Teams**  **The Cadmus Group, Inc.**  **Commercial Scientific Firms, both Laboratory and I nstrument**  **Manufacturers**  **Department of Defense**  **Laboratory Technical Information Group (LTIG)**  **National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC)**  **New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection**  **Office of Research and Development (ORD)**  **Participating Universities**  **Research Triangle Park (RTP)**  **State Regulatory Agencies**
---

CERTIFICATIONS

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 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 24 Hour Auction
  (the "Company") on Form 10QSB for the period ended November 30, 2003 as filed
  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date, the undersigned, being
  the Chief Executive Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
  2002, that:

|1. | the report fully complies with the requirements of 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: September 17, 2004 | Signed: | /s/ Robin Lee                                          
|------------------------ | ------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|                         | Name:   | Robin Lee                                              
|                         | Title:  | Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer

---
Fw: County Rules - Infrastructure SIP

Jeanhee Hong to: Jeffrey Buss, John Ungvarsky 06/14/2012 04:55 PM

Cc: Noah Smith

From: Jeanhee Hong/R9/USEPA/US

To: Jeffrey Buss/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, John Ungvarsky/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Noah Smith/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Could you make sure this e-mail is included in the docket (together with all of the other submittals from 

ADEQ)? Thanks.

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

Jeanhee Hong

Assistant Regional Counsel 

US EPA Region 9 (ORC-2)

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 972-3921 (direct line)

(415) 947-3570 (FAX)

----- Forwarded by Jeanhee Hong/R9/USEPA/US on 06/14/2012 04:54 PM -----

From: "Danielle M. Dancho" <Dancho.Danielle@azdeq.gov>

To: Jeanhee Hong/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Diane Arnst <Arnst.Diane@azdeq.gov>, "Eric C. Massey" <Massey.Eric@azdeq.gov>

Date: 06/14/2012 04:43 PM

Subject: County Rules - Infrastructure SIP

Jeanhee,

ADEQ has requested Rule 100, Section 500 from Maricopa County, as well as Rules 17.12.040 and 

17.24.040 from Pima County. Maricopa County has submitted Rule 100 to ADEQ for inclusion in the 

SIP. ADEQ will be forwarding that on to EPA as soon as possible. As of today, June 14, 2012, ADEQ 

has not heard back from Pima County regarding Rules 17.12.040 and 17.24.040.

In order for ADEQ to submit the County rules to EPA, the County must meet the requirements listed in 

Title 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, including public participation requirements and request a revision to 

the Arizona SIP. This is usually done at the time the rule is revised. However, if that was not done, the 

County must go through public process again, this time “noticing” the rule as a revision to the SIP. Once 

the County is done with the public process, they submit the rules, along with record of public process and 

a SIP checklist, to ADEQ for adoption and submission into the SIP. 

At this time, it is not known whether Pima County put the above mentioned rules out for public comment 

as a SIP revision at the time that the rules were revised. We will keep you updated.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Thank you,

Danielle M. Dancho, Esq.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Air Quality Division, Planning Section
Environmental Health Specialist II

Rules Specialist

1110 W. Washington St.

Phoenix, AZ 85007

(602) 771-4210

dancho.danielle@azdeq.gov

NOTICE: This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL information and is 

intended only for the use of the specific individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information that is 

privileged and confidential under state and federal law. This information may be used or disclosed only in accordance 

with law, and you may be subject to penalties under law for improper use or further disclosure of the information in 

this e-mail and its attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the person 

named above by reply e-mail, and then delete the original e-mail. Thank you.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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:*                         Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group; NHLBI Single-Site and Pilot Clinical Trials Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         February 23-24, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         YingYing Li-Smerin, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 207-P, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-827-7942,                         *lismerin@nhlbi.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 6, 2022.

David W Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-00308 Filed 1-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT
10.7


 


AMENDMENT


 


to the


 


FERRELL COMPANIES, INC.


1998 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


 


WHEREAS, Section 9.7
of the Ferrell Companies, Inc. 1998 Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”)
provides that the Board of Directors of Ferrell Companies, Inc. (the “Board”)
may amend the Plan at any time;


 


WHEREAS, the Board
has approved an increase in the number of shares of common stock of Ferrell
Companies, Inc. that are available for issuance under the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board
has determined that it is desirable for the trustee of the Ferrell Companies, Inc.
Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the “ESOP”) to approve the increase to the
number of shares;


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
the following amendment to the Plan is hereby approved:


 


1.            The following is
hereby substituted for Section 4.1 of the Plan:


 


“4.1        Number
of Shares Reserved. Subject
to adjustment in accordance with Sections 4.2 and 4.3, the aggregate number of
shares of FCI common stock (‘Common Stock’) available
for incentives under the Plan shall be 9,250,000. All shares of Common Stock
issued under the Plan may be authorized and unissued
shares or treasury shares.”


 


2.            The following is
hereby substituted for Section 4.3 of the Plan:


 


“4.3        Adjustments to Shares Reserved. In the event of any merger,
consolidation, reorganization, recapitalization, spinoff,
stock dividend, stock split, reverse stock split, exchange, or other
distribution with respect to shares of Common Stock or other change in the
corporate structure or capitalization affecting the Common Stock (each being an
‘Adjustment’), the type and number of shares of stock which are or may be
subject to incentives under the Plan and the terms of any outstanding
incentives (including the price at which shares of stock may be issued pursuant
to an outstanding incentive) shall be equitably adjusted by the Committee, in
its sole discretion, to preserve both the value of incentives awarded or to be
awarded to Participants under the Plan and number of shares of stock which are
or may be subject to incentives under the Plan prior to the date of Adjustment
(taking into account both incentives granted but not yet distributed from the
Plan and incentives not yet granted under the Plan).”


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned, as trustee of the ESOP, hereby consents to the foregoing
amendment.


 


 


	
   

  	
  TRUSTEE

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Vaughn Gordy

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
  President
*Agenda times are approximate and subject to change depending upon the discussion.

US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD

NOVMEBER 2012 PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA

Environmental Protection Agency Conference Center

Lobby Level - One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.) 

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202 

Thursday, November 1, 2012

HSRB WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/

Docket Telephone: (202) 566 1752

Docket Number: EPA–HQ–ORD–2012–0718

1:00 PM* Convene Public Meeting – Jim Downing, Designated Federal Officer, EPA 

Human Studies Review Board, Office of the Science Advisor

Introduction of Board Members –Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH, HSRB Chair

Welcome - Glenn Paulson, Ph.D., Science Advisor, EPA

Opening Remarks – Steven Bradbury, Ph.D., Director, Office of Pesticide 

Programs (OPP), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA

Follow-up on Previous HSRB Recommendations – Mr. William Jordan, OPP, 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA

Session 1: A completed study report from the Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Task 

Force II (AEATF) in which the dermal and inhalation exposure of professional 

janitorial workers was monitored as they poured liquid antimicrobial pesticide 

products from conventional or reduced-splash containers into different sizes 

and types of source containers. EPA seeks the advice of the HSRB on the 

scientific soundness of this completed research and on its appropriateness for use in 

estimating exposure that results from pouring liquid antimicrobial pesticide 

products. EPA also seeks the advice of the HSRB on whether available information 

supports a determination that the study was conducted in substantial compliance 

with subparts K and L of 40 CFR Part 26.

1:40 PM EPA Science Review – Mr. Tim Leighton, (OPP, EPA) 

2:15 PM Board Questions of Clarification – Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), 

EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor

2:45 PM EPA Ethics Assessment - Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)

3:15 PM Board Questions of Clarification – Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), 

EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor

3:45 PM Break

3:55 PM Public Comments 

4:05 PM Board Discussion 
*Agenda times are approximate and subject to change depending upon the discussion.

Charge to the Board - Science:

 Was the research reported in the Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Task Force II 

(AEATF) completed study report faithful to the design and objectives of the protocol and 

governing documents of AEATF?

 Has EPA adequately characterized, from a scientific perspective, the limitations on these

data that should be considered when using the data in estimating the exposure of 

professional janitorial workers who pour liquid antimicrobial pesticide products from 

conventional or reduced-splash containers into different sizes and types of source 

containers?

Charge to the Board - Ethics:

 Does available information support a determination that the study was conducted in

substantial compliance with subparts K and L of 40 CFR Part 26?

5:00 PM* Adjourn
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4115 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide a restoration of notice 

pleading in Federal courts, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2009 

Mr. NADLER of New York (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of 

Texas, Ms. CHU, Mr. MICHAUD, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, and Mr. 

COHEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide a restoration of notice pleading in Federal courts, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Open Access to Courts 

5 Act of 2009’’. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4115 IH

1 SEC. 2. NOTICE PLEADING RESTORATION. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 131 of title 28, United 

3 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘§ 2078. Limitation on dismissal of complaints 

6 ‘‘(a) A court shall not dismiss a complaint under sub7 division (b)(6), (c) or (e) of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules 

8 of Civil Procedure unless it appears beyond doubt that the 

9 plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim 

10 which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. A court shall 

11 not dismiss a complaint under one of those subdivisions 

12 on the basis of a determination by the judge that the fac13 tual contents of the complaint do not show the plaintiff’s 

14 claim to be plausible or are insufficient to warrant a rea15 sonable inference that the defendant is liable for the mis16 conduct alleged. 

17 ‘‘(b) The provisions of subsection (a) govern accord18 ing to their terms except as otherwise expressly provided 

19 by an Act of Congress enacted after the date of the enact20 ment of this section or by amendments made after such 

21 date to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pursuant to 

22 the procedures prescribed by the Judicial Conference 

23 under this chapter.’’. 

24 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

25 at the beginning of chapter 131 of title 28, United States 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4115 IH

1 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

2 item: 

‘‘2078. Limitation on dismissal of complaints.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 2413** 

CHRISTIE WYATT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. IPKEYS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. T. S. Ellis, III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 00223

- TSE

- IDD )

Submitted : April 19, 2016 Decided: May 2, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Christie Wyatt, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Earl Barnsback, LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christie Wyatt appeals from the jury’s verdict in favor of
IPK eys Technologies, LLC, on her claim that she was terminated in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. § 4311 (2012). We have considered Wyatt’s arguments and reviewed the district court record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Wyatt v. IPKeys Technologies,
LLC , No. 1:15

- cv - 00223

- TSE

- IDD (E.D. Va. Oct. 15, 2015)
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presente d in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1103 KA 08-02652**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND LINDLEY, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
MACKPASSION HUITT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (GEOFFREY KAEUPER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered July 30, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court