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

###### Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

# AGENCY:

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

# ACTION:

Proposed additions to the procurement list.

# SUMMARY:

The Committee is proposing to add service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before: March 20, 2022.

# ADDRESSES:

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or email                         *CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

## Additions

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product(s) and service(s) listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

The following service(s) are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

### Service(s)

*Service Type:*                         Base Supply Center                    

*Mandatory for:*                         Hanscom Air Force Base                    

*Designated Source of Supply:*                         Industries for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Inc., West Allis, WI                    

*Contracting Activity:*                         DEPT OF THE AIR FORCE, FA2835 AFLCMC HANSCOM PZI                    

Michael R. Jurkowski,

Acting Director, Business Operations.

[FR Doc. 2022-03604 Filed 2-17-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Cruz, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 624]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J), rendered November 8, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s unelaborated objections failed to preserve his challenges to background testimony regarding street-level drug operations *(People v Tevaha,*84 NY2d 879 [1994]) and to the People’s summation *(People v Harris,*98 NY2d 452 [2002]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the court properly exercised its discretion in admitting brief, limited testimony that assisted the jury in understanding defendant’s role in the drug transaction and refuted his claim of innocence. Further, we would also find that the challenged summation remarks generally constituted fair comment on the evidence in response to defense arguments *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
#### Michael HURTADO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TRIAL COURT JUDGES OF the FOLLOWING DISTRICTS, Individually and in Their Official Capacities; Trial Court District Attorneys of the Following Districts, Individually and in Their Official Capacities; Trial Court Defense Attorneys, Individually and in Their Official Capacities, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-10453

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 30, 2017

Michael Hurtado, Pro Se

*152Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Hurtado, Texas prisoner # 1445905, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in an appeal of the district court’s dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. His IFP motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

The original § 1983 complaint alleged that trial court judges, district attorneys, and defense attorneys violated Texas criminal defendants’ rights in various ways relating to their indictment and prosecution. We agree that Hurtado’s IFP motion has not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we deny his motion for leave to proceed IFP and dismiss the appeal as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Hurta-do’s complaint and this court’s dismissal of his appeal each count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Hurtado also received two strikes in another recent appeal (No. 16-50039). Because he has accumulated at least three strikes under § 1915(g), Hurtado is-barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# Four th Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

November 18, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00489

- CR
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

v.

Ruben ELIZONDO, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 15
, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 657461 Honorable Melissa Vara , Judge Presid ing



### O R D E R

Appellant Ruben Elizondo retained Trey Porter to represent him at trial

. According to counsel , Appellant has not retained him for appeal, and counsel has moved to withdraw.
Counsel’s motion does not fully comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, t he motion does not contain the following required information :

• t he dates for the current deadlines and settings in the case
,

• A ppellant’s last known address and telephone number
,

• a statem ent that a copy of the motion was delivered to A ppellant in person
, or by certified and first

- class mail
, and

• a statement that A ppellant was notified in writing of the right to object to the motion to withdraw.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.5(a), (b); Rivera v. State , 130 S.W.3d 454, 458 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.).
C ounsel’s motion is DENIED without prejudice to refiling a motion that fully complies with the Rules._________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the sea l of the said court on this 18th day of November, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ
, Clerk of Court
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lori K. Hudson, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 432 C.D. 201 6

Respondent : Submitted: October 21

, 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON

, Judge

HONORABLE JULIA K. HEARTHWAY

, Judge

HONORABLE JOSEPH M. COSGROVE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE COSGROVE FILED: February 1, 2017

In this matter, Petitioner challenges the decision of the Unemployment

Compensation Review Board which affirmed denial of benefits. The briefs of

Petitioner and Respondent having been filed, on October 17, 2016, this Court

ordered that the matter would be addressed witho ut oral argument. 1 By letter dated

November 1, 2016, Petitioner advised the Chief Clerk that she was “withdrawing

[her] appeal in this matter” and asked to be advised “of any additional steps

necessary, if any, to withdraw the appeal.”

On November 3, 20 16, the Chief Clerk sent a Defect Correction

Notice to Petitioner, advising her that her request to withdraw her appeal “must be

1 The per curiam order issued that day advised that the matter would be “submitted on

briefs of the Petitioner and Respondent only” and precluded the filing of a brief by the Intervenor

for failure to comply with an earlier order directing a brief be fi led by September 9, 2016.2

in the form of a motion [with] a certificate (proof) of service.” Petitioner was

further advised that if these corrective step s were not taken “within 14 days of the

date of this notice, this matter will be considered abandoned and may be

dismissed.” To date, nothing further has been received from Petitioner.

Although Petitioner’s November 1 letter indicated a desire to end her

appeal, it was, by itself, insufficient to accomplish her goal. Petitioner’s failure to

comply with the Clerk of Court’s directive, however, leaves us with little choice

but to, in effect, satisfy her wishes by dismissing this matter. See Goetz v.

Depart ment of Environmental Resources

, 613 A.2d 65 ( Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) citing

Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.

, 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (dismissal of an action for

failure to prosecute does not violate a [party’s] due process rights).

As such, the Petition for Review is dismissed with prejudice.

___________________________ JOSEPH M. COSGROVE, JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lori K. Hudson, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 432 C.D. 2016

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 1st day of February

, 201 7

, the Petition for Review is

dismissed with prejudice.

___________________________ JOSEPH M. COSGROVE, Judge
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

 In connection with the Quarterly Report ofElixir Gaming Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Clarence Chung,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Andy Tsui, VicePresident Finance 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 therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:    |   /s/ Clarence  Chung                 |   | Dated: | November 13, 2008 |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------|
|   |   Clarence Chung                      |   |   |                   |
| Title: |   President,  Chief Executive Officer |   |   |                   |
|   |                                            |   |   |                   |
|   |                                            |   |   |                   |
| By:    |   /s/ Andy Tsui                       |   | Dated: | November 13, 2008 |
|   |   Andy Tsui                           |   |   |                   |
| Title: |   Vice President  Finance             |   |   |                   |
|   |   (Principal  Financial Officer)      |   |   |                   |

 

This certification is madesolely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to theknowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
Nicholas Robert DUNLAP v. STATE

CR-15-0439

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied; memo of 02/03/2017 withdrawn; memo substituted; affirmed.
**Exhibit23.1**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (FileNos. 333-121054 and 333-135903) of Tasker Products Corp. (formerly known as “TaskerCapital Corp.”) of our report, dated March 9, 2006, except for Note 1A, as towhich the date is May 31, 2006, relating to the consolidated balance sheets ofTasker Products Corp. and Subsidiaries (a development stage company) as ofDecember 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years thenended, which appears in this Form 10-KSB.

 
| Roseland, New Jersey | /s/ Rothstein, Kass & Company, P.C. |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| October 26, 2006     |                                    |

 

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6289 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6289

  To provide that Executive Order 14027 shall have no force or effect.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 8, 2023

 Mr. Brecheen (for himself, Mr. Grothman, and Mr. Burlison) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide that Executive Order 14027 shall have no force or effect.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Climate Hysteria in Diplomacy 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXECUTIVE ORDER 14027.

    Executive Order 14027 (86 Fed. Reg. 25947; relating to 
establishment of the climate change support office) shall have no force 
or effect.
                                 <all>
```
OFFICEOFTHEA?TORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

0 opinion or this 

oe* net bare authorproduced food pro&- 

Code dealarea t 

T eanplayee in any 

0 Prfeon sy8tem, 

ally intrsrted 

uetlon oonneated with the 

11 be ~ontinsd in the 

ear than t+o nar morti tb4n 

870 of the Penal cods doalareet 

nlo oflIar or arplgee of the date 

peuttonti~ ehall be pemaitted to pwutuse 

sny goods or siekrehhandise orother proparty 

most the state or Penitentiary syetea, esoept eu6h surpltm Goode, vegetables, ioe, 

water, steam 4zid lights as may be produced 

or m4aufaotured on the premiee4 cl the pfmh 

tent&wy, or to appropriate to his private 
Bonorable 0. W; Stakes - page S 

use or employment the labor, services, or use 

of any State penitentiary oonviot, or of any 

animal, rchiale or other personal property belonging to the Stat e, unlesoltbeby the axpress aanwint of the renitentlary Board bad b7 

anorde@ tothateffeet entered of reaord on 

the mlnutee of 8a&i Board, prbr&ding for the 

amOUnt to be paid by such 0ffi.oe.r or ttmplorea, 

for the me, employment and aerv~oes of 8uah 

cronviot or oomiota for the use of any personal property belo~@ng to the sta te; l l l . 

Any euoh 0m0m or saplgee rho shall tiolate 

w pro~ieion of tbb Artfole &all be punishedbyd%amLssalSrombis aSfloe or SmploJlnent 

and by a fine of not lees th+n twenty-five dollam nor more than t80 hundred dollara, amd It 

the oomlotion be for aeoeptlmg or reoeiving 

sruatlon from l hirer or aomiate, the party so aonntothepenalty above 

In jatl not lees than 

oneyear.**e.. 

Aa interpretatian or theme statutem impel8 0a to 

the oonludon above amounted. 

Of oourse, Mai8 ep%nlon would xwt apply to a aase 

of speaAf3.0 legislatito appropriation of euah produets am 

part-of the ooqmuatlan to 8uab an employee, nor does it 

apply to sales oi the produete of the penitentiary to BDployoea, M speoially provlded.in drtiole !m of the Penal 

code above quote&. 

very truly yours 

ATTGtUtsI GRSB~AT,I OF T 

666
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramiro HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-60635 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 31, 2017

John Arthur Meynardie, Esq., Gaines H. Cleveland, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Ramiro Hernandez, Pro Se

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Ramiro Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez has filed a response. The record is.not sufficiently developed to allow us to-make a fair evaluation of Hernandez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Hernandez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir, R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Leon V. IMPSON, Jr. as Agent FOR Ebba Babin IMPSON v. The UNOPENED SUCCESSION OF Betty Jean IMPSON

NO. 2018-C-0452

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 11, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
#### William D. BROWDER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Tom GAREY; S. Flecher; Bryan Collier; Holly Beard, Hearing Officer; Dominique Ross Nwajei; Lorie Davis, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-40285

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 3, 2017

*261William D. Browder, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

William D. Browder, Texas prisoner # 00549674, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in an appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. His IFP motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

In his amended § 1983 complaint, Brow-der alleged that officials with the Texas Board of Pardon and Paroles and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice unlawfully imprisoned him and violated his right to due process by failing to afford him a preliminary hearing following his arrest on a pre-revocation warrant, failing to hold his parole revocation hearing within the time limits prescribed by Texas and federal law, and confining him in a prison rather than a jail. He further asserted that his attorney failed to argue that his rights had been violated. Finally, Browder contended that he should have been released back on parole after the statutory deadline for providing him a revocation hearing expired.

We agree with the district court that Browder has not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we deny his motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and dismiss the appeal as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Brow-der’s § 1983 complaint and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous count as strikes under the three-strikes provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Coleman v. Tollefson,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1761, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015); *Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Browder is cautioned that if he accumulates another strike under § 1915(g), he will not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Brad HOLMAN & Brian Holman, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Christopher STIDD, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0779

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 22, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed because of the appellants' failure to satisfy this court's March 2, 2018 fee order.

Appellee's motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

KELLY, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0367

THE CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRIANNE NICOLE RANA,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 5, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 28 2021

01/28/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0367
#### William R. ABBOTT, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-41168 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 21, 2017

William R. Abbott, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

*191PER CURIAM: *

William Russell Abbott, federal prisoner # 57819-083, was convicted in 2008 in the Eastern District of Virginia of attempting to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual acts for which a person could be charged with a criminal offense and of transporting child pornography. Abbott filed the instant motion challenging the legality of his criminal conviction and sentence. The pleading was construed by the district court as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It was dismissed because Abbott had not shown that he may proceed under the Savings Clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Abbott contends that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense and is innocent because the offense did not involve a minor victim. He complains also that an interstate nexus was not established. Because these claims are not based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision, Abbott has not satisfied the standard for filing a § 2241 petition under the Savings Clause of § 2255. *See Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). The judgment is AFFIRMED. Abbott’s motion for extraordinary relief and for sanctions is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th cm. 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 5th cm. R. 47.5.4.