alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-7072.

#### Leroy Gentles, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1053, 131 S. Ct. 622,

178 L. Ed. 2d 451,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8911.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Same case below, 619 F.3d 75.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3721-3722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1738]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Customer Comments; AF Form 
3211; OMB Number 0701-(to be determined).
    Type of Request: New Collection.
    Number of Respondents: 200.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 200.
    Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 17.
    Needs and Uses: Each guest of Air Force lodging and its contract 
lodging operations are provided access to AF Form 3211. AF Form 3211 
gives each guest the opportunity to comment on facilities and service 
received. Completion of the form is optional. The information 
collection requirement is necessary for Wing leadership to access the 
effectiveness of their lodging program. AF Form 3211 is useful as 
background documentation and supporting material for various management 
decisions. The information is reviewed by higher headquarters during 
lodging assistance and Innkeeper Award competitions.

[[Page 3722]]

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households; Business or Other For-
Profit.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C. Springer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Springer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: January 21, 1998.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 98-1738 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2855 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2855

To deem the application submitted by Jaci Hermstad to the Food and Drug 
  Administration for compassionate use of the gene therapy antisense 
                    oligonucleotides to be approved.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2019

 Mr. King of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To deem the application submitted by Jaci Hermstad to the Food and Drug 
  Administration for compassionate use of the gene therapy antisense 
                    oligonucleotides to be approved.

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

SECTION 1. DEEMED APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR COMPASSIONATE USE OF THE 
              GENE THERAPY ANTISENSE OLIGONUCLEOTIDES.

    Notwithstanding the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
301 et seq.) or any other provision of law, the application submitted 
by Jaci Hermstad to the Food and Drug Administration for compassionate 
use of the gene therapy antisense oligonucleotides is deemed to be 
approved.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17450]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 987]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Komatsu America 
International Company, Inc.; (Construction and Mining Equipment Parts 
Distribution) Ripley, TN

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To 
provide for the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, 
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved;
    Whereas, an application from the City of Memphis, Tennessee, 
grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 77, for authority to establish special-
purpose subzone status at the warehousing/distribution (non-
manufacturing) facility of Komatsu America International Company, Inc., 
located in Ripley, Tennessee, was filed by the Board on June 30, 1997, 
and notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register 
(FTZ Docket 57-97, 62 FR 36487, 07/08/97); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application 
is in the public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby authorizes the establishment of a 
subzone (Subzone 77C) at the Komatsu America International Company, 
Inc., facility in Ripley, Tennessee, at the location described in the 
application, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, 
including Sec. 400.28. The scope of authority does not include activity 
conducted under FTZ procedures that would result in a change in tariff 
classification.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of June 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

    Attest:
Dennis Puccinelli,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17450 Filed 6-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Skip directly to site content Skip directly to search


Español  Other Languages


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
 Search

		Submit


Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)








Professional Development										Related Pages
										Learn more through various educational resources, conferences, and training opportunities.STD ConferenceNational Network of STD Clinical Prevention Training Centers (NNPTC)Disease InterventionProjects & InitiativesSTD Clinical Slides
							
					
							Last Reviewed:  January 31, 2023						Source: 	Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
					Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate homePublic Health ProfessionalsCommunication ResourcesProfessional DevelopmentFacts & InformationProgram Funding and ManagementData & StatisticsTreatment and Screening For Healthcare Providers For Public Health Professionals Follow STD STD on Twitter
STD on Facebook


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov


Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6489

WILLIS BENNETT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN L. LAMANNA, Warden; US PAROLE COMMISSION,

THE,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (3:06-cv-00499-PMD)

Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 7, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willis Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Willis Bennett, a prisoner in custody under a sentence

imposed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bennett has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
No. 10-6083.

#### Patricia Mills, Petitioner v. Wayne County Board of Education.

562 U.S. 1000, 131 S. Ct. 552,

178 L. Ed. 2d 368,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8477.

November 1, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until November 22, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
**Sample Single Overriding Communications Objective (SOCO)_____________**

***Worksheet***

In one BRIEF paragraph, state the key point or objective you want to accomplish by doing the interview.  This statement should reflect what you, the author or speaker, would like to see as the lead paragraph in a newspaper story or broadcast report about your topic.

What are the three or four facts or statistics you would like the public to remember as a result of reading or hearing about this story?

Who is the main audience or population segment you would like this message to reach?

Primary: General public   Secondary:  Policy makers (awareness)

What is the ONE message you want the audience to take away from this interview/report?

Who in your office will serve as the primary point of contact for the media?

Name: Phone: Email: 

Date(s) and time(s) available:Date:Time:
No. 10-308.

#### Patricia Dodson, Petitioner v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, et al.

562 U.S. 1135, 131 S. Ct. 902,

178 L. Ed. 2d 747,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 300.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

*748Same case below, 601 F.3d 750.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 26, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00116

- CR

Anton Jamail HARRIS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR3427

Honorable Frank J. Castro , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant has filed a third motion for extension of time to file his brief.

Appellant’s motion presents extenuating circumstances. Therefore, the motion

is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on or before November 20, 2020

.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

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

court on this 26th day of October, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
---

CONSENT OF AUTHORG. Guler, PrEng, FSAIMM, MAusIMM
Deloitte Mining Advisory Services Deloitte Consulting Pty Ltd
Building 4, Deloitte Place The Woodlands, Woodlands Drive, Woodmead,
Sandton Johannesburg, South Africa

US Securities and Exchange Commission

I, G. Guler, PrEng, FSAIMM, MAusIMM, certify that I have read
the written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that
there are any misrepresentations in the information provided to the Company by
Deloitte Mining Advisory Services in the written disclosure in the Form 20F of
Anooraq Resources Corporation.

I do hereby consent to the filing with the regulatory
authorities.

Dated this 1st day of July, 2009.

|/signed/ G.
      Guler          
|---------------------------------
|                                 
|G. Guler, PrEng, FSAIMM, MAusIMM 
|Deloitte Mining Advisory Services

---
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of L.O.M.  Medical  International,  Inc.
(the "Company"),  on form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Tanya Sedlacek, Chief 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:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
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.


October 14, 2003                                  By:   /s/ Tanya Sedlacek
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Tanya Sedlacek
                                                  Its:  Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6489

WILLIS BENNETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN L. LAMANNA, Warden; US PAROLE COMMISSION, THE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00499-PMD) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 7, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willis Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Willis Bennett, a prisoner in custody under a sentence imposed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a subst antial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bennett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
No. 10-6602.

#### Richard L. Pickett, Petitioner v. Bennie Rollins, Deputy Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1016, 131 S. Ct. 535,

178 L. Ed. 2d 394,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8362.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rohan Samuels, Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 852]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered September 16, 2015, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the *591judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Renwick, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.
No. 10-6701.

#### Eugene Wideman, Jr., Petitioner v. Colorado; and Eugene Wideman, Jr., Petitioner v. Amelia Garcia.

562 U.S. 1142, 131 S. Ct. 907,

178 L. Ed. 2d 761,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 333.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 743 (first judgment); and 382 Fed. Appx. 741 (second judgment).
#### Alvin Davidson, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[65 NYS3d 520]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered June 8, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the state and federal law claims of malicious prosecution, assault, battery, and excessive force, and denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the federal law claims of illegal search and seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, and battery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff testified that he found a bag containing a gun and that when he saw defendant Lt. Maloney walking towards him, he so informed the officer. Since *“a*search authorized by consent is wholly valid,” plaintiff’s claims of illegal search and seizure and false arrest must fail *(see Schneckloth v Bustamonte,*412 US 218, 222 [1973]). The suppression of the gun following a *Dunaway/Mapp*hearing, at which plaintiff did not testify, is not dispositive since the doctrine of collateral estop-pel is inapplicable here *(see Jenkins v City of New York,*478 F3d 76, 85 [2d Cir 2007]).

The malicious prosecution claims were correctly dismissed because plaintiff failed to show either lack of probable cause or malice *(see Smith-Hunter v Harvey,*95 NY2d 191, 195 [2000]). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the officers were not obligated to inform the grand jury of his claim that he had just found the gun *(see Gisondi v Town of Harrison,*72 NY2d 280, 285 [1988]; *Abdul-Aziz v City of New York,*56 AD3d 291, 293 [1st Dept 2008], *lv denied*12 NY3d 712 [2009]).

The claim of excessive force was correctly dismissed since plaintiff testified that the handcuffs were too tight, but he did not testify, or submit other evidence, that he sustained physical injury as a result *(see Burgos-Lugo v City of New York,*146 AD3d 660, 662 [1st Dept 2017]). For the same reason, coupled with the finding of probable cause for the arrest, the claims of assault and battery were correctly dismissed *(see Mendez v City of New York,*137 AD3d 468 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur— *545Richter, J.R, Kapnick, Webber, Oing and Singh, JJ.