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

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 18216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7451]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday April 27, 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. 2012-7451 Filed 3-26-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 5
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 5
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 5
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 5
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 5
BAYJOHN OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. ABG CAULKING CONTRACTOR, INC., and American Constructors, Inc.

1151150

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BACK BAY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
JUNE 29, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                       1,920,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  283,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    674,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,120,000
<PP&E>                                      56,576,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              25,211,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,211,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,960,000
<BONDS>                                      7,531,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,434,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,211,000
<SALES>                                     24,122,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,122,000
<CGS>                                        6,685,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,726,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,274,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             166,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                956,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   354,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            602,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   602,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Timothy LEAK, Respondent-Appellant. United States of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Timothy Leak, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 17-6007, No. 17-6190

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Timothy Leak, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Dee Dannels, FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER, Butner, North Carolina; Robert J. Dodson, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Leak appeals from the district court’s orders denying his pro se motions to vacate the November 2014 judgment committing him to the custody and care of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) (2012) and for a discharge hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Leak,*No. 5:14-hc-02166-BR (E.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 2016; Jan. 3, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and .argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
SKYLINE SYSTEMS, INC., etc., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. PENINSULA II DEVELOPERS, INC., etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s)

CASE NO.: 3D17-1430

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JANUARY 5, 2018

ORDERED that appellant's notice of voluntary dismissal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed.
EX PARTE Michael Davis WILLIAMS

1151107 (CR-15-0677)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
David Cole ARNOLD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2430

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

TONY CURTIS KILE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

No. 98-6555

GEORGE TRENT, Warden; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.

William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge.

(CA-97-97-1)

Submitted: July 30, 1998

Decided: August 31, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Tony Curtis Kile, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Rory

Lee Perry, II, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST

VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief

on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). Appellant's conviction became final on September 12, 1995.

On April 23, 1997, Appellant filed a § 2254 petition. The district

court denied relief because Appellant filed his petition outside the

one-year limitation period imposed by 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2244(d) (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). Pursuant to our recent decision in Brown v.

Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208, 1998 WL 389030

(4th Cir. July 14, 1998), Appellant had until April 23, 1997, in which

to file a timely petition. Since Appellant filed his§ 2254 petition on

April 23, 1997, it is therefore timely under Brown. Accordingly, we

vacate the district court's order and remand this case for consideration

on the merits. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
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 Yak Communications Inc. (the Company)
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles Zwebner, Chief Executive Officer and principal financial 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, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1). | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 28, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    CHARLES ZWEBNER
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                        |  | Charles Zwebner        
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
T.M., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-323

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 27, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew Overpeck, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### James J. JARDINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; Richard J. Graham, Jr., Warden (WCI); Denise Gelsinger, Asst. Warden (WCI); B. Ziler, CO II; Wexford Health Sources, Inc.; Robustiano Barrera, Doctor (WCI); Beverly McLaughlin, C.R.N.P., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6413

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 15, 2017

Decided: August 23, 2017

James J. Jardina, Appellant Pro Se. An-kush Nayar, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph Barry Chazen, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James J. Jardina seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to certain defendants on some claims in his civil complaint, dismissing some claims with prejudice, and dismissing the remaining claims without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the district court identified a deficiency that Jardina may remedy by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Jardina seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral *131order. *See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we deny Jardina’s motions for appointment of counsel and for entry of default judgment, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Jardina to file an amended complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED AND REMANDED*
Kenneth L. JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-3045

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 81 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 81

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Health 
   and Human Services relating to ``Vaccine and Mask Requirements To 
       Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 in Head Start Programs''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2022

Mr. Joyce of Ohio (for himself, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, Mrs. Spartz, and Mr. 
 Mast) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Health 
   and Human Services relating to ``Vaccine and Mask Requirements To 
       Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 in Head Start Programs''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services relating 
to ``Vaccine and Mask Requirements To Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 
in Head Start Programs'' (86 Fed. Reg. 68052 (November 30, 2021)), and 
such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 15

Letter from Ernst & Young LLP Regarding Unaudited Interim Financial Information

The
Stockholders and Board of Directors of First Data Corporation

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-125588, 333-101883, 333-90180, 333-90182, 333-66368, 33-47234, 33-48578, 33-82826, 33-87338, 33-90992, 33-62921, 33-98724, 33-99882, 333-09017, 333-09031, 333-28857, 333-68689, 333-81691, 333-85715, 333-90719 and
333-93703; Form S-3 No. 333-120214; and Form S-4 Nos. 333-15497 and 333-105432) of First Data Corporation of our report dated August 7, 2007 relating to the unaudited consolidated interim financial statements of First Data Corporation that
are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007.



| |  |  |  |                      
| |  |  |  | ---------------------
| |  |  |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Denver, Colorado

August 7, 2007
Gary R. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3270

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 27, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 13, 2018

No. 04

- 02

- 0055 1

- CR

Sean Devon CLARK

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001

- CR

- 6202

Honorable Mark R. Luitjen, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s Motion to Recall Mandate is hereby DENI ED.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 13th day of April, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 99


           REVIEW REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Catalina Marketing Corporation (a Delaware corporation) as of June 30, 1998,
and the related condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for
the three-month periods ended June 30, 1998 and 1997. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted
in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of
which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken
as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above, for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Catalina Marketing Corporation as
of March 31, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
separately herein), and, in our report dated April 23, 1998, we expressed an
unqualified opinion on those financial statements. In our opinion, the
information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet
as of March 31, 1998, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation
to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


                                               /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Tampa, Florida,
     July 14, 1998
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, I, Robert Boeckman,  Chief Operations
Officer and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Breda Telephone Corp., certify that to
my knowledge (i) Breda  Telephone  Corp.'s  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
fiscal year ended  December  31, 2004 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
and (ii)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of Breda
Telephone Corp.

Date: April 12, 2005


                                        /s/ Robert Boeckman
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Robert Boeckman, Chief Operations
                                        Officer and Co-Chief Executive Officer


                                       E-3
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 96-20846 Summary Calendar

_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MIGUEL ANGEL SILVA-JARA, a/k/a Angel Gomez, a/k/a Jose Antonio Gonzalez, a/k/a Carlos Nieto, a/k/a Wilson Rodriguez, a/k/a Miguel Angel Rodriguez, a/k/a Willie Rivera, a/k/a Angel M. Silva, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas USDC No. CR-H-96-15-1

_________________________________________________________________ June 26, 1997 Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Miguel Angel Silva-Jara appeals his sentence for illegal entry following deportation. Silva-Jara argues that the imposition of an
enhance d sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) was plainly erroneous because the indictment failed to allege and the government failed to prove that he has a prior conviction for an aggravated felony.-2-

He also argues that his 115-month sentence constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment because it is grossly disproportionate to his
offense. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties,

we AFFIRM. S ee United States v. Vasquez-Olvera , 999 F.2d 943,
945-47 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Prudhome , 13 F.3d 147, 150 (5th Cir. 1994).
A F F I R M E D.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 CITY OF SANTA FE ex rel. 2 SANTA FE POLICE DEPARTMENT, 3 Petitioner-Appellee, 4
v. No. A-1-CA-36579 5 ONE (1) 1999 TAN AUDI SEDAN 6 V.I.N. WAUED28D9XA318391 7 NEW MEXICO LICENSE NO. 779TLZ, 8 Respondent, 9 and 10 ROSAMARIA ROMERO, 11 Claimant-Appellant. 12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 13 Raymond Z. Ortiz, District Judge 14 Office of the City Attorney 15 R. Alfred Walker 16 Santa Fe, NM 17 for Appellee 18 Rosamaria Romero 19 Santa Fe, NM 202 Pro Se Appellant 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION 2 VANZI, Chief Judge. 3 {1} Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 4 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has 5 been filed and the time for doing so has expired. 6 {2} DISMISSED. 7 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

__________________________________ 9 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

_________________________________ 12 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 13

_________________________________ 14 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 15
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41160 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ELEAZAR MACIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-97-CR-137-1

- - - - - - - - - - August 18, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Eleazar Macias has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the brief and record discloses no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.