alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 9256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4506]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1819-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


Arkansas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-1819-DR), dated February 6, 2009, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 11, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Arkansas is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of February 6, 2009.

    Cleburne, Conway, Crawford, Cross, Poinsett, and Randolph 
Counties for Public Assistance.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Nancy Ward,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-4506 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
No. 09-8373.

#### Kareem Smith, Petitioner v. David Napoli, Superintendent, Southport Correctional Facility.

559 U.S. 981, 130 S. Ct. 1708,

176 L. Ed. 2d 195,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2031.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 347 Fed. Appx. 695.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT:

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL

EQUIPMENT:

COMMERCIAL UNITARY AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

July 2004

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Program

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards

Washington, DC 20585
This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy

by staff members of

Navigant Consulting, Inc.,

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,

and

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
No. 11-5654.

#### Israel Gomez-Almanza, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 918, 132 S. Ct. 337,

181 L. Ed. 2d 211,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5943.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
No. 09-9202.

#### Anthony Lipscomb, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1053, 130 S. Ct. 2353,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3016.

176 L. Ed. 2d 570,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
1 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 12 2 , 326

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

S TATE OF K ANSAS , Appellee ,

v.

I SHMAEL R. R IDGE , Appellant

.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; D AVID L

. D AHL , judge. Opinion filed October 30 , 2020. Affirmed

.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21

- 6820(g) and (h).

B efore A RNOLD

- B URGER , C .J., B USER and W ARNER , JJ.

P ER C URIAM : Ishmael Ridge appeals the district court's order revoking his probation and imposing his underlying prison sentence. We granted Ridge's motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (20 20 Kan. S. Ct. R. 47). After reviewing the district court's decision, we affirm.

In December 2016, the State charged Ridge with aggravated burglary ( a felony ) and misdemeanor theft. Following negotiations, Ridge and the State entered into a plea agreement , whereby Ridge agreed to plead guilty to the two crimes and the State agreed

to recommend a downward dispositional departure. In January 2018, the court imposed

an underlying 48

- month prison sentence , then granted the departure and imposed
36 months' probation

.2

In September 2019, the district court issued a warrant against Ridge based on a November 2018 charge of interference with a law enforcement officer . See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21

- 5904(a). After Ridge pleaded guilty to that charge , t he court revoked his probation in this case . Ridge appeals

.

T he decision whether to revok e probation "rests within the sound discretion of the district court." State v. McFeeters , 52 Kan. App. 2d 45, 47, 362 P.3d 603 (2015). W e review a district court's decision to revoke probation for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the district court's decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; is based on an error of law; or is based on an error of fact. State v. Lloyd , 52 K an. App. 2d 780, 782, 375 P.3d 1013 (2016). Ridge bears the burden to show the district court abused its discretion when it decided to revoke his probation. See State v. Ballou , 310 Kan. 591, 615, 448 P.3d 479 (2019).

Ridge acknowledges that Kansas law pe rmits a district court to revoke a person's probation when he or she commits a new felony offense

— which Ridge admits he did here. See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22

- 3716(c)(7)(C) ; K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22

- 3716 (c)(8)(A). Under these facts, the district court had discretion to revoke Ridge's probation and impose his underlying sentence instead of taking other remedial action. The court did not abuse its discretion when it did so

.

Affirmed.
No. 09-9027.

#### Buwlus A. Muhammad, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1020, 130 S. Ct. 1918,

176 L. Ed. 2d 389,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2347.

March 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 336 Fed. Appx. 188.
No. 09-8635.

#### Mark E. Phillips, aka Mark L. Aaron, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 961, 130 S. Ct. 1564,

176 L. Ed. 2d 149,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1180.

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 588 F.3d 218.
----

----

** **
**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**

| (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: December                  20, 2007 | By:                                                    | /s/ Chaslav                  Radovich |
|                                          | Chaslav                  Radovich                                |
|                                          | Acting Chief                  Executive                  Officer |
----

----

** **
**Exhibit      32.1**

| (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: November              20, 2006 | By:                                                         | /s/ Gerald              Yakatan |
|                                      | Gerald                YakatanChief                  Executive Officer |
EXHIBIT 32.1
NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.
CERTIFICATION
In connection with the Annual Report of Novellus Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Richard S. Hill, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.   Dated: March 14, 2005 By: /s/ Richard S. Hill       Richard S. Hill Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Golub Capital BDC 3, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Registrant”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2020 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ross A. Teune, as Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that:


(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 Registrant.


/s/ Ross A. TeuneName: Ross A. TeuneTitle:  Chief Financial Officer





Date: December 14, 2020
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

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Cortelco Systems Puerto Rico, Inc. ("Registrant") for the three months ended January 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Juan Carlos Ramos, Chief Executive Officer, and Francisco Sanchez, Chief Financial Officer of Registrant, hereby certify, that:

 

| 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date: March 16, 2007 | /s/   Juan Carlos Ramos      |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------|

Juan Carlos Ramos

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

|   | /s/ | Francisco Sanchez |
|--------|-----|-------------------|

Francisco Sanchez

Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 9, 2009

1215 

# Order

January 9, 2009

137338

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137338 COA: 285845 Kalamazoo CC: 94-000719-FC GARY THOMAS FRANKLIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 21, 2008 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). To the extent that the defendant’s motion involves a request for DNA testing under MCL 77 0.16, the defendant
fails to establish an entitleme nt to DNA testing because he fails to satisfy the four

conditions set forth in MCL 770.16(3).

H ATHAWAY , J., not participating.
No. 09-8946.

#### Murray Hooper, Petitioner v. Illinois.

559 U.S. 1018, 130 S. Ct. 1912,

176 L. Ed. 2d 385,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2483.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 389 Ill. App. 3d 1145, 364 Ill. Dec. 646, 976 N.E.2d 1209.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

      ( print page 9245)    
                    In accordance with § 271.25 of its rules regarding availability of information (12 CFR part 271), there is set forth below the domestic policy directive issued by the Federal Open Market Committee at its meeting held on January 27 and 28, 2009.1

                    The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent with federal funds trading in a range of 0 to                     1/4                     percent. The Committee directs the Desk to purchase GSE debt and agency-guaranteed MBS during the intermeeting period with the aim of providing support to the mortgage and housing markets. The timing and pace of these purchases should depend on conditions in the markets for such securities and on a broader assessment of conditions in primary mortgage markets and the housing sector. By the end of the second quarter of this year, the Desk is expected to purchase up to $100 billion in housing-related GSE debt and up to $500 billion in agency-guaranteed MBS. The System Open Market Account Manager and the Secretary will keep the Committee informed of ongoing developments regarding the System's balance sheet that could affect the attainment over time of the Committee's objectives of maximum employment and price stability.                

By order of the Federal Open Market Committee, February 19, 2009.

Brian F. Madigan,

Secretary, Federal Open Market Committee.

# Footnotes

1.                             Copies of the Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee at its meeting held on January 27 and 28, 2009, which includes the domestic policy directive issued at the meeting, are available upon request to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. 20551. The minutes are published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin and in the Board's annual report.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. E9-4471 Field 3-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
No. 09-626.

#### Thomas Loch, et al., Petitioners v. Edwardsville Community Schools District No. 7.

559 U.S. 991, 130 S. Ct. 1736,

176 L. Ed. 2d 212,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2279.

March 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 327 Fed. Appx. 647.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6871

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DANQUAN A. FANNING , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Cameron McGowan Currie , Senior District Judge. ( 3:16

- cr - 00257

- CMC

- 1; 3:20

- cv - 03523

- CMC )

Submitted : September 9, 2021 Decided: September 14, 2021

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Danquan A. Fanning, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Danquan A. Fanning seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion

. See Whiteside v. United States , 775 F.3d 180, 182

- 83 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one

- year statute of limitations, r unning from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). 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). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is deba table and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that F anning 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00113-CR

__________________

IKEAL WADE GARDINER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 1A District Court

Jasper County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14049JD

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

The clerk’s record was filed on April 12, 2022, and the reporter’s record was 

filed on November 14, 2022. On August 10, 2022, William Stephen Shires 

substituted as retained counsel for appellant Ikeal Wade Gardiner. On December 14, 

2022, the Court granted an extension of time to file the brief. On January 17, 2023,

we notified the parties that neither the brief nor a motion for an extension of time 

had been filed, and we warned that unless we received the brief by January 27, 2023, 
2

we would order the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why no brief has 

been filed. As of this date the brief has not been filed.

We abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing 

at which a representative of the State, counsel for the appellant, and the appellant 

shall be present. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(3). We direct the trial court to determine 

whether or not appellant desires to pursue his appeal. If appellant desires to pursue 

his appeal, we direct the trial court to determine why the brief of the appellant has 

not been filed, why appellant’s counsel has not responded to the late notice from this 

Court, and whether good cause exists to determine that retained counsel, William

Stephen Shires, has abandoned the appeal. If the trial court determines that counsel 

has abandoned the appeal, the trial court shall determine whether the appellant is 

indigent and whether counsel should be appointed for the appeal. See Tex. Code 

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(j)(2).

The record of the hearing, including any orders and findings of the trial court 

judge, shall be sent to the appellate court for filing. The transcription of the court 

reporter’s notes from the hearing and the recommendations of the trial court judge 

are to be filed on or before March 10, 2023. 

ORDER ENTERED February 8, 2023.

PER CURIAM

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.
No. 09-9394.

#### In re Anthony Gaston, Petitioner.

559 U.S. 1036, 130 S. Ct. 2083,

176 L. Ed. 2d 430,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2768.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PIXION, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., AND CITRIX ONLINE, 

LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2012-1636

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 09-CV-3496, Judge 

Susan Y. Illston.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

 COLBY B. SPRINGER, Lewis and Roca, LLP, of Mountain 

View California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Of counsel was SHANE E. OLAFSON, of Phoenix, Arizona. 

 BLAIR M. JACOBS, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, of 

Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. With 

him on the brief were SARAH CHAPIN COLUMBIA and LEIGH 

J. MARTINSON, of Boston, Massachusetts. Of counsel on 

the brief was TERRY W. AHEARN, of Menlo Park, California. Of counsel was BRYAN KEITH JAMES, of Menlo Park, 

California. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, BRYSON, AND DYK, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 

March 19, 2013 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk