alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 39091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19551]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 11:00 a.m., Monday, July 27, 1998.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: 
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

Supplementary Information: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.bog.frb.fed.us for an electronic announcement that not only 
lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information 
about the meeting.

    Dated: July 17, 1998.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-19551 Filed 7-17-98; 3:36 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
No. 11-130.

#### Timothy William Hawley, Petitioner v. California.

565 U.S. 883, 132 S. Ct. 253,

181 L. Ed. 2d 146,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5332.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, denied.
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 theglobe.com  (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Garrett  Pettingell,
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
to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 14, 2004

/s/ Garrett Pettingell
-------------------------
Garrett Pettingell
Chief Financial Officer


                                       38
No. 11-5595.

#### Rudolph Rossi, Petitioner v. New York.

565 U.S. 915, 132 S. Ct. 332,

181 L. Ed. 2d 207,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6112.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department, denied.

Same case below, 82 App. Div. 3d 911, 918 N.Y.S.2d 359.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-31258

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT KINCADE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF WEST MONROE ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Louisiana

(93-CV-1976)

 

July 25, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

Robert Kincade appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

civil rights complaint following a bench trial. Kincade argues

that the district court refused to admit relevant evidence and

ignored other evidence, causing the court to conclude erroneously

that the defendants did not violate Kincade’s civil rights. We
2

have reviewed the record and the briefs and AFFIRM the dismissal of

Kincade’s complaint. The findings of fact set forth by the

district court are not clearly erroneous. See Kincade v. City of

West Monroe et al., No. 3:93:1976 (W.D. La. Nov. 16, 1995). No

reversible error is shown as to evidentiary rulings.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.02








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter Graham L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christian Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, 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; and




(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.




























By:
/s/ Christian AngstadtName:
Christian AngstadtTitle:
Chief Financial Officer ofDemeter Management LLC,General Partner of the registrantDate:
August 12, 2010
No. 11-5639.

#### William D. Edgar, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 917, 132 S. Ct. 336,

181 L. Ed. 2d 210,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5905.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 431 Fed. Appx. 93.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

443.1 

KA 12-01432 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LASHORN SPARROW, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

KINDLON SHANKS AND ASSOCIATES, ALBANY (TERENCE KINDLON OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SCOTT D. MCNAMARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (STEVEN G. COX OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L.

Dwyer, J.), rendered August 2, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him,

upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree (Penal Law §

120.05 [former (3)]). By failing to renew his motion for a trial

order of dismissal after presenting evidence, defendant failed to

preserve for our review his contention that the conviction is not

supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d

56, 61, rearg denied 97 NY2d 678). In any event, that contention is

without merit (see generally People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349). 

The People presented legally sufficient evidence from which the jury

could find that defendant knew that his vehicle had been pulled over

by the police, that the persons outside his vehicle were police

officers, that the officers were “performing a lawful duty,” and that

defendant “cause[d] physical injury to [a] police officer” when he

backed his vehicle up and drove away (§ 120.05 [former (3)]). In

addition, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime

as charged to the jury (see Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349), we reject

defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the

evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). 

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was

deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct (see CPL 470.05

[2]; People v Montero, 100 AD3d 1555, 1555, lv denied 21 NY3d 945),

and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a

matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6]

[a]). We reject defendant’s further contention that he received

ineffective assistance of counsel. Viewing the evidence, the law and
-2- 443.1 

KA 12-01432 

the circumstances of the case, in totality and as of the time of the

representation, we conclude that defense counsel provided meaningful

representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). 

Finally, we have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and

conclude that none requires reversal or modification of the judgment.

Entered: May 9, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
No. 11-5605.

#### Todd M. Jack, Petitioner v. Navy Federal Credit Union.

565 U.S. 947, 132 S. Ct. 405,

181 L. Ed. 2d 265,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7303.

October 11, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Roger S. Newton, Chief Executive Officer of Esperion Therapeutics, Inc.,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Esperion
Therapeutics, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of
the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based upon such
evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.

/s/ Roger S. Newton
Roger S. Newton,
Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 10, 2003
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit 10(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Pre-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-170529) pertaining to Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment No. 5, and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 30, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) March 30, 2012, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N.







/s/ Ernst & Young LLP









Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


March 30, 2012
*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

# AP6.23. APPENDIX 6.23

**MASS OR UNIVERSAL CANCELLATION MESSAGE**

FROM:  {APPROPRIATE INDICATOR OF SENDER}

TO:  {INSERT ADDRESSEE(S)}

INFO:  {INSERT ADDRESSEE(S)}

SUBJECT:  MASS OR UNIVERSAL CANCELLATION REQUEST

1. REQUESTED BY:  {ENTER OFFICE SYMBOL OF REQUESTOR (FROM)}.

2. CONSIGNEE:  {ENTER “N/A” OR APPLICABLE DODAAC(S) TO BE CANCELLED}.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE:  {ENTER ORDINAL DAY OF YEAR THAT CANCELLATION ACTION IS TO BE IMPLEMENTED}.

4. PRIORITY DESIGNATOR:  {ENTER “N/A” OR APPLICABLE PD(S) TO BE CANCELLED}.

5. FSC, FSG, NSN, P/N:  {ENTER “N/A” OR FSC, FSG, NSN, P/N TO BE CANCELLED}.

6. PROJECT CODES(S):  {ENTER “N/A” OR PROJECT CODE(S) TO BE CANCELLED}.

7. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:  {ENTER “N/A” OR APPLICABLE ENTRY FROM CHAPTER 8, 1.5. FOR MASS CANCELLATIONS, ENTER “NONE” FOR UNIVERSAL CANCELLATIONS}.

NOTE:  All paragraph headings are mandatory entries.  The Department of Defense activity address code (DoDAAC) is a mandatory entry in Paragraph 2 above, when data is entered in Paragraph 4 or 5.

**SAMPLE**

1

APPENDIX 1.23

AP6.23-1

APPENDIX 6.23
#### J. D. Young, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. E. C. Worrell, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed May 4, 1926.

Petition for rehearing denied June 2, 1926.

*857
      *H. M. Hampton,*Attorney for Plaintiff in Error;

*Bishop & Buie,*Attorneys for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

— This was an action of assumpsit on an open account with the usual form of declaration and pleas of never was indebted and set off. When the case was at issue it was referred to Hon. J. W. Hunter, as referee for trial. The referee made his finding January 28, 1921, and motion for new trial at once made and overruled February 14,1921. Final judgment was entered and the record returned to the Clerk’s office on the date that the motion for new trial was overruled. The final judgment was properly recorded in Marion County, Florida.

It later developed that the final judgment so entered was a nullity and not a final judgment in fact so the record was returned to the referee and on August 29, 1924, a good and valid judgment was entered. Motion was presented to the Circuit Judge to vacate this last judgment which was denied and writ of error was taken to said judgment.

Writ of error is predicated on the premise, that when the judgment was entered and the record filed in the Clerk’s office February 14, 1921, the jurisdiction of the referee in the cause was at an end and that, therefore, the final judgment entered by him August 29, 1924, was illegal.

Sections 2865 and 2868 inclusive, Revised General Statutes .of Florida, define the manner of naming, the purpose, powers and duties of referees and we think when named as the law directs for the disposition of the case in hand the referee takes the place of and performs all the duties that would have devolved on the judge naming him if he (the judge) were eonducteing the case. The referee is guided by the law and rules that would have controlled *858the judge and. his control of the case continues till it is closed and a valid judgment is entered.

Under this holding it becomes unnecessary to discuss other assignments of error so the judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

5/4/2015 COA No. 01-13-00712-CR

COMBEST, JOHN ELSWORTH Tr. Ct. No. 1221980 PD-0379-15

The Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review has this day been filed. [The

Court requires ten copies of this document to be filed in this office within three (3)

days pursuant to Rule 9.3(b). Failure to send copies will result in the refusal of the

petition.]

Abel Acosta, Clerk

1ST COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

301 FANNIN

HOUSTON, TX 77002-7006

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
No. 10-11035.

#### Gary N. Parker, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1013, 132 S. Ct. 549,

181 L. Ed. 2d 396,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8033.

November 7, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EMS Technologies, Inc.
2007 Stock Incentive Plan
 Restricted Stock Award
Restriction Agreement
With
Gary B. Shell
 May 2, 2008
    1. Grant of Shares.
  2. Restriction.




---



##### 



3. Lapse of Restriction by Passage of Time.
 4. Lapse of Restriction by Death or Disability.
 . Forfeiture of Shares.
 6. Endorsement and Retention of Certificates.
    7. Withholding Taxes.




---



##### 



8. No Rights to Continued Employment.
 9. Succession.
 10. Dividends.
    EMS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.By:Paul B. DomorskiPresident and Chief Executive Officer  Gary B. Shell




---



##### 



, 2008SignatureGary B. ShellPrinted Name Witness:




---



##### 



EMS Technologies, Inc.
2000 Stock Incentive Plan
 Terms of Restricted Stock
Form 5/02/08
    1. Grant of Shares.
  2. Restriction.
 3. Lapse of Restriction by Passage of Time.
 4. Lapse of Restriction by Death or Disability.




---



##### 



5. Forfeiture of Shares.
 6. Endorsement and Retention of Certificates.
    7. Withholding Taxes.




---



##### 



8. No Rights to Continued Employment.
 9. Succession.
 10. Dividends.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Charter Graham L.P. and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       9,648,268
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,384,661<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,472,732<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,472,732<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               253,361<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               211,118
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,243
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             42,243
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,243
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include subscriptions receivable of $1,354,199 and
interest receivable of $30,462.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net
unrealized gain on open contracts of $439,803.
<F3>Liabilities include accrued brokerage fee of $54,972 and accrued
management fee of $15,706.
<F4>Total revenues include realized trading revenue of $(271,605), net
change in unrealized of $439,803 and interest income of $85,163.
</FN>


</TABLE>
No. 11-5302.

#### Lynwood Carlton Farmer, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 964, 132 S. Ct. 454,

181 L. Ed. 2d 296,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7569.

October 17, 2011.

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

Same case below, 419 Fed. Appx. 163.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6745** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MICHAEL T. MCGEE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling
. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 5:13

- cr - 00023

- FPS

- JES

- 1 )

Submitted : September 29 , 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD , KEENAN , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Michael T. McGee, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, William J. Ihlenfeld, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael T. McGee appeals the district court ’ s order granting as framed his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion to correct a clerical error in the transcript of his jury trial proceedings
. We have reviewed the recor d and find no reversible error. The court’s correction of the trial transcript is supported by other record documents. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v McGee , No. 5:13

- cr 00023

- FPS

- JES

- 1 (N.D. W. Va. M ay 11, 2016) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
No. 11-6195.

#### Mark Anthony Evans, aka Mark Evans, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 960, 132 S. Ct. 433,

181 L. Ed. 2d 288,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7158.

October 11, 2011.

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

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 428 Fed. Appx. 358.
No. 10-1501.

#### Robert H. Katyle, et al., Petitioners v. Penn National Gaming, Incorporated, et al.

565 U.S. 825, 132 S. Ct. 115,

181 L. Ed. 2d 39,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5324.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 637 F.3d 462.