alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18894]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importation of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Section 1008 of the Controlled Substances Import and 
Export Act (21 U.S.C. 958(i)), the Attorney General shall, prior to 
issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a 
controlled substance in Schedule I or II and prior to issuing a 
regulation under Section 1002(a) authorizing the importation of such a 
substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk 
manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
    Therefore, in accordance with Section 1301.34 of Title 21, Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that on May 19, 1998, 
Knight Seed Company, Inc., 151 W. 126th Street, Burnsville, Minnesota 
55337, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration to be registered as an importer of marihuana (7360), a 
basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule I.
    This application is exclusively for the importation of marihuana 
seed which will be rendered non-viable and used as bird seed.
    Any manufacturer holding, or applying for, registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of this basic class of controlled substance may file 
written comments on or objections to the application described above, 
and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such 
application in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.43 in such form as 
prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
    Any such comments, objections or requests for a hearing may be 
addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, 
Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United 
States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA 
Federal Register Representative (CCR), and must be filed no later than 
(30 days from publication).
    This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and 
independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), 
(e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice at 40 FR 43745-46 
(September 23, 1975), all applicants for registration to import a basic 
class of any controlled substance in Schedule I or II are and will 
continue to be required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 
Administration that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 
21 U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21 CFR 1301.34(a), (b), (c), 
(d), (e), and (f) are satisfied.

    Dated: July 2, 1998.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-18894 Filed 7-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
No. 10-11086.

#### Leon Henry, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 866, 132 S. Ct. 212,

181 L. Ed. 2d 115,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7105.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 430 Fed. Appx. 151.
No. 10-10662.

#### James C. Platts, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 843, 132 S. Ct. 156,

181 L. Ed. 2d 72,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6032,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Unaudited Balance Sheet and Statement of Income for the period ended March 31,
2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      1,874,787
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,120
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1,882,907
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,882,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         350,162
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                  1,532,745
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,882,907
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               23,662
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               32,787
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (9,125)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (9,125)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (9,125)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.001)


</TABLE>
No. 10-10917.

#### Joe Alexander Browder, Jr., Petitioner v. Philip Parker, Warden, et al.

565 U.S. 804, 132 S. Ct. 375,

181 L. Ed. 2d 4,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6510.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Exhibit 31.4

Certifications

Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael Binney, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Emerson Radio Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;

Date: July 27, 2018



/s/ Michael BinneyMichael BinneyChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has been provided to Emerson Radio Corp. and
will be retained by Emerson Radio Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 10-10553.

#### Lonnie Geter, Petitioner v. Michael McCall, Warden.

565 U.S. 840, 132 S. Ct. 151,

181 L. Ed. 2d 67,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6139.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 412 Fed. Appx. 564.
No. 10-9970.

#### Wayne Earl LaFountain, Petitioner v. Erick Balcarcel.

565 U.S. 810, 132 S. Ct. 84,

181 L. Ed. 2d 15,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6617.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
Order filed, October 30, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00690

- CR

____________ CORDERO JARREAL STEV ENSON , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, T exas Trial Court Cause No. 1299880



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due September 23, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Mary Ann Rodriguez , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
**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 thequarterly report of Janus Capital Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy K. Armour,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 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 resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Timothy K. Armour   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Timothy  K. Armour      |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

Date: July 22, 2009

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to JanusCapital Group Inc. and will be retained by Janus Capital Group Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### *State, Respondent, v. Hargrove, Petitioner,*

No. 92074-5.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 30940-1-III, July 9, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 1046. *Denied*January 6, 2016.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18744]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than July 29, 1998.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Betsy Buttrill White, Senior 
Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. U.S.B Holding Co., Inc., Orangeburg, New York; to acquire Tappen 
Zee Financial, Inc., Tarrytown, New York, and thereby indirectly 
acquire Tarrytowns Bank, FSB, Tarrytown, New York, and theregy engage 
in operating a savings association, pursuant to Sec.  225.28(b)(4)(ii) 
of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 9, 1998.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-18744 Filed 7-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
## lEmRTMENTO F -^,si:SPORWiO M • )PERAJ10N S • r r r \ I U S AtRW'A V I

T 

## lOiaOCT M P 2}S U

f'-nrni . Ai i aaOJ i 450.fi<5 T nR M AuKiisl 26.201 0 Th e Honorabl e Ra

v LnHoo d Sccrctarj ' o f

Transjwrtatiyi i U.S . Departmen t

o f rrati$port4t<io

n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S R Washitigton , D C 2059 0 Dea r Secretar y LallotHl ; U S Airway s pro\'ide s servic e t o many smal l cDnununitie s thrcuj^iou l th e country , benefitin g th e eoonomic s «nddtizscn s o f thos e communitieii . O n Jun e 24''' t 201 0 w e were plt^ase

dt o initiat e servic e betwee n th e Bato n Roug e Metropolitan Airpor t an dou r larges t hu b i n flhei^otte . N.C . Th e purpos e o f

thi s ie^e r i s t o suppor

t tli e Bato n Roug e Medupolila n Aiiport' s applicatio n fo r Federal fiinding unde r

th e Smal l Community Ai r Servic e r>eveIopmen

t Gran t programt o fun

da communit y awarenes s campaig n t o buil dsu|^r t for th e aiipart

an dth e ne w U S Airway s Expres s servic e t o Ctiarlotte . Our Charlott e servic e ha s addresse dth e Bato n Roug e at«a s nee d fo r eltem«itiv e hu b servic e i n th e East , providin g asecortdcompetito r i n tlt e marke t

Preliminar

y dat asupport s th e community' s belie f that thi s ne w servic e wil l positivel y impac t th e mailce

t throug h improve dschedule s an dcapacity , mor e competitiv e fares , an dreduce dleakag e t o Ne w Orleans . Whil e th e firs t

few montli s o f

servic e at e bookin g withi n a n acceptabl e range , i t h important

that th e passenge r

loadfactor s continu e t o improv e t o reac h profitabl e levels . W e agre e that th e implementatio n o f

acommunity awarenes s campaigit i t o promot e usag e o f

th e Bato n Roug e M<^ropolita

n Airport , particularl y th e ne w U S Airway s service , wil t b e beneficial i n Iniildin g suppor t fo r th e airpor

t an dU S Airways . U S Airway s i s committe dt o workin g wit h th e Bato n Roug e Metropolitan Airport ensur e th e ne w servki e i s successful .

Gran t Applicatio n Unde rtit e 201 0 Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Progra m OST-2010-012 4
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18068]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
(CA-067-7123-00-6683)


Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area, Imperial County, CA; 
Planning Initiation

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management, El Centro Field Office will 
initiate a planning effort for the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area 
in Imperial County, CA as of [the date of this publication]. This plan 
will replace the outdated existing Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area 
Management Plan written in 1987. The first stage of the planning effort 
will be to conduct open houses to gather public comments and concerns. 
Open houses are tentatively scheduled for San Diego, CA., Orange 
County, CA., and Phoenix, AZ. The Written comment period has been 
extended. Comments will be accepted through July 31, 1998 at the 
address below.

DATES: Dates and times will be published in local newspapers.

ADDRESSES: Locations will be published in local newspapers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elayn Briggs, Operations Staff Chief, 
at the Bureau of Land Management, El Centro Field Office, 1661 S. 4th 
St., El Centro, CA 92243, e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c191e0e151b1b0f3c1f1d521e1011521b130a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a5f5848535d5d497a595b14585657145d554c">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (760) 
337-4400.

    Dated: June 29, 1998.
Terry A. Reed,
Field Manager.
[FR Doc. 98-18068 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6197

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MICHAEL J. WALLACE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00012-FDW-CH-1; 3:07-cv-00456-FDW)

Submitted: October 22, 2009 Decided: November 4, 2009

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael J. Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael J. Wallace seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. The district court’s orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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. See MillerEl 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 Wallace has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wallace’s motion for production of a transcript at government expense, 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
J i"&^

PD 1070-14

PD-1070-14

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 2/9/2015 9:58:28 PM

Accepted 2/11/2015 3:53:35 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

ADRIAN BRONCHA ALEXANDER

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS

February 11, 2015

ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the Tenth Court of Appeals

Waco, Texas

10-12-00281-CR

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION

FOR REHEARING

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

I.

COMES NOW, Appellant in the above styled case, and makes and

files this his request for an extension of time to file his Motion for

Rehearing and would show unto the Court the following:

Court Below: Tenth Court of Appeals

Cause Number Below: 10-12-00281-CR
Date Petition for Discretionary

Review Refused: 1-14-15

Present Deadline for Filing Appellant's

Motion for Rehearing: 2-9-2015

Days requested for this extension: 5 days

Date to which extension is requested: 2-16-15

Number of extensions

previously granted: 1

I.

The Appellee's request is based upon the following reasonable

explanation of the need for additional time, within the personal

knowledge of Charles W. McDonald, the attorney signing this motion,

T.R.A.P. 10.5(b), namely:

II.

Continued extensive interior and exterior repair following severe

water damage to counsel's office has delayed my ability to get work out.

Counsel also had a brief due in the Tenth Court of Appeals on the same

date as this motion and respectfully requests an additional 5 days to file

Appellant's Motion for Rehearing. The motion is partially completed.

By previous agreement, this motion is unopposed by opposing counsel.

III.

WHEREFORE, this Attorney for the Appellant prays that the

Court grant this motion and extend the time and deadline for the filing

of Appellant's Motion for Rehearing, or the Court grant such additional

time as is just and proper.
"V

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Charles W. McDonald

Charles W. McDonald

2024 Austin Avenue

Waco, Texas 76701

Pone: (254) 752-9901

Fax: (254) 754-1466

SBOT NO. 1353880

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the above

and foregoing instrument was served upon the State Prosecuting

Attorney, P.O. Box 12405, Austin, Texas, 78711, and Abelino "Abel"

Reyna, McLennan County Criminal District Attorney, 219 N. Sixth

Street, Suite 200, Waco, Texas 76701-1363, as allowed by rule and law,

this 9th day of February, 2015.

/s/ Charles W. McDonald

Charles W. McDonald
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices 

# Order

March 8, 2019

158038

STEPHANIE SHERMAN, KAYLA

ROLLEND, AMANDA ROLLEND,

by her Next Friend JACOB MARCINIAK,

and EMILY ROLLEND, by her Next

Friend JACOB MARCINIAK,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 158038

COA: 333514

Macomb CC: 2015

- 000040

- NO

ISRAEL BROS, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appea l the May 24, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

M ARKMAN , J. ( dissenting ).

I respectfully dissent from this Court’s order denying leave to appeal for the

reasons set forth in my dissenting statement in Thompson v Gibson , ___ Mich ___ (2019)

( M ARKMAN

, J. , dissenting). This case, as with Thompson , concerns whether a landlord

posse ssed constructive notice of a defect within leased premises that caused injury to a

tenant. In my judgment, the Court of Appeals majority failed to recognize and address

the proper legal inquiry as laid out in my Thompson dissent; i.e., it failed to exami ne

whether the landlord knew or should have known of the defect before leasing the

property. However, unlike in Thompson

— in which this Court has already once

remanded for reconsideration

— in the instant case, the Court of Appeals has not had the

opport unity to reconsider its conclusion in light of clearly applicable legal principles.

Moreover, the proper application of these principles in the instant case is somewhat less

clear than in Thompson , given that plaintiffs here provided expert testimony (alt hough

arguably of insufficient precision) regarding the duration of the alleged defect, and the

specific nature of that defect

— corrosion of a water heater

— seems somewhat more likely

to have arisen over a substantial period of time than the defect in Th ompson . While I am

unsure whether this evidence gives rise to a genuine issue of material fact that theI, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 8, 2019

a0305 2

Clerk landlord should have known of this defect when the lease was signed four years before

the injury occurred, the issue nonetheless is worthy of plenary appellate review under the

proper legal standard. Accordingly, I would remand to the Court of Appeals for

reconsid eration in light of the legal framework set forth in my dissent in Thompson

.