alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 8546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4001]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Public Health 
Informatics (BSC, NCPHI)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the CDC announces the following meeting 
of the aforementioned committee:

    Time and Date: 12 p.m.-2 p.m., March 20, 2009.
    Place: The teleconference call will originate at the CDC; to 
participate in the teleconference, please dial 1 (866) 713-5586 and 
enter conference code 4624038.
    Status: Open to the public; teleconference access limited only 
by availability of telephone ports.
    Purpose: The board will meet to conduct BSC, NCPHI business.
    Matters To Be Discussed: To discuss BSC, NCPHI-related matters 
including: NCPHI portion of the stimulus package; update on 
BioSense; re-formation of three working groups; and planning for the 
May 26, 2009 meeting in Orlando, Florida.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    For Further Information Contact: Dr. Scott McNabb, National 
Center for Public Health Informatics, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., 
(E-78), Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone (404) 498-6427, Fax (404) 
498-6235.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities for both the CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: February 13, 2009.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC).
 [FR Doc. E9-4001 Filed 2-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 208 DB 2019 (No. 9 RST 2020)

:

JEANMARIE BROWNE : Attorney Registration No. 75745

: 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

 FROM RETIRED STATUS : (Lehigh County)

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of January, 2020, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated January 23, 2020, is approved and it is ORDERED that

Jeanmarie Browne, who has been on Retired Status, has never been suspended or 

disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, competency and 

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, 

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The 

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall 

be paid by the Petitioner.
No. 09-640.

#### Victor William Molina-De La Villa, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

559 U.S. 1005, 130 S. Ct. 1882,

176 L. Ed. 2d 362,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2656.

March 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 306 Fed. Appx. 389.
No. 09-8436.

#### Michael Walker, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 956, 130 S. Ct. 1551,

176 L. Ed. 2d 142,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1206.

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 348 Fed. Appx. 910.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4803 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for an additional place 

of holding court in the eastern district of California, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2006 

Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. HERGER, and Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of 

California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for an 

additional place of holding court in the eastern district 

of California, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL PLACE OF HOLDING COURT; DES4 IGNATION OF JUDGES. 

5 (a) EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.—Section 

6 84(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended in the 

7 second sentence by inserting ‘‘Bakersfield,’’ after ‘‘shall 

8 be held at’’. 

9 (b) DESIGNATION OF JUDGES.— 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4803 IH 

1 (1) BAKERSFIELD.—The chief judge of the 

2 eastern district of California shall designate 1 dis3 trict judge whose official duty station shall be in Ba4 kersfield, California and who shall hold court for 

5 such district in Bakersfield, California. 

6 (2) REDDING.—The chief judge of the eastern 

7 district of California shall designate another district 

8 judge whose official duty station shall be in Redding, 

9 California and who shall hold court for such district 

10 in Redding, California. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
# C_2016190EN.01000602.xml

| 28.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/6

---

Adoption of Commission Decision on the notification by the Republic of Slovenia of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions

(2016/C 190/07)

On 25 May 2016, the Commission adopted Commission Decision C(2016) 3012 on the notification by the Republic of Slovenia of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (1).

1

This document is available on the following internet site: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/36205e98-8e7a-47d7-808d-931bc5baf6ee

---

(1)  OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17.

1

---
No. 11-359.

#### Miracle Star Women’s Recovering Community, Inc., Petitioner v. Katherine Jett, et al.

565 U.S. 1046, 132 S. Ct. 589,

181 L. Ed. 2d 442,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8103,

November 14, 2011.

Motion of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Antelope Valley Branch Unit #1023 for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Petition for writ of certio-rari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-60117

Conference Calendar

 

MICHAEL GEROME WESTON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:01-CV-12-WS

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

December 11, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Gerome Weston, Mississippi prisoner # 04120-043,

challenges the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition, in which he asserted that counsel had been ineffective

at sentencing and that his sentence violated Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The district court determined that

it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

because Weston challenged the validity of his sentence rather

than the manner in which it was being executed but had not

demonstrated that relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate.
No. 01-60117

-2-

Weston argues that dismissal was error and that his claims

were properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because Apprendi had

not been decided at the time he filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

and because he cannot meet the requirements for filing a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. His arguments are

unconvincing.

As the district court determined, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides

the primary means of collaterally attacking a federal conviction

and sentence. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir.

2000). Although Weston may pursue 28 U.S.C. § 2241 relief upon a

showing that relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate, he has

failed to make such a showing. The fact that Weston cannot meet

the requirements for filing a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

is insufficient. See id. at 878. Additionally, Weston does not

present a prima facie Apprendi claim because the 176-month

sentence he received does not exceed the 20-year statutory

maximum for a cocaine-base-distribution offense involving

unaggravated drug quantities. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West

Supp. 2000). Apprendi thus does not apply. See United States v.

Doggett, 230 F.3d 160, 165 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S.

Ct. 1152 (2001). That being so, this court will not address the

remainder of Weston’s arguments.

Weston has not demonstrated any error in the district

court’s judgment, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. Weston’s motion

to amend his § 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition to supplement his 
No. 01-60117

-3-

Apprendi claim and his motion to supplement his reply brief are

DENIED.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6463

WILLIE J. ODOM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PARKER EVATT, South Carolina Department of

Corrections; TRAVIS MEDLOCK, Attorney General

of State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Chief District

Judge. (CA-94-1787-2-2AJ)

Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie J. Odom, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. Odom v. Evatt, No. CA-94-1787-2-2AJ (D.S.C.

Mar. 4, 1997). 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. The

motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

DISMISSED
No. 09-8510.

#### Larod Franklin, Petitioner v. Illinois.

559 U.S. 982, 130 S. Ct. 1711,

176 L. Ed. 2d 197,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2034.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 391 Ill. App. 3d 1117, 367 Ill. Dec. 837, 982 N.E.2d 987.
No. 11-7593.

#### Jesse Morales, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1135, 132 S. Ct. 1063,

181 L. Ed. 2d 779,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 103.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 397 Fed. Appx. 883.
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Annual Report of Healthcare Technologies Ltd. on Form
20-F for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Moshe Reuveni, Chief
Executive Officer of Healthcare Technologies Ltd., 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 15(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Healthcare
Technologies Ltd.

                                             HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

                                             By: /s/ Moshe Reuveni
                                                 ------------------------
                                             Moshe Reuveni
                                             Chief Executive Officer
Date: June 20, 2003
#### City of West Palm Beach, Florida, a Municipal Corporation, George L. Wright, City Manager of Said City of West Palm Beach, Florida, and Henry Stephen Harvey, W. J. Bedell, A. E. Pearson, Seaborn *M.*McCrory and E. A. Stephenson as City Commissioners of the City of West Palm Beach, Florida, *Appellants,*v. George A. Zellar, *Appellee.*

En Banc.

Decision Filed Jan. 30, 1926.

*Raymond Yeomans,*for Appellants.

*Quincy & Rice,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

— This appeal is from an order restraining the city officials from enforcing regulations requiring an examination for obtaining a license under the city ordinances to carry on the business of supervising electrician. If the ordinance requiring examination of the applicant as a prerequisite to the granting of a license is invalid as *224alleged, the matter may be adjudged in mandamus proceedings; and as the remedy at law is full, complete and adequate, and no sufficient grounds for equitable interference appearing, the order granting an injunction against the city is reversed with directions to dismiss the bill of complaint.

Brown, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Strum, J. J., concur.
No. 09-8716.

#### Christopher Barfield, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 984, 130 S. Ct. 1719,

176 L. Ed. 2d 201,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1924.

March 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 348 Fed. Appx. 743.
Montana Twelfth Judicial District Court. County of Hill.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- SUSAN MARIE MAGERA, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-09-092

DECISION

On November 30, 2015, the Defendant’s suspended sentence was revoked and she was sentenced to the Department of Corrections for a period of two (2) years, for the offense of Criminal Distribution of Dangerous Drugs, a Felony. The Court recommended the Department of Corrections screen Defendant for placement in an appropriate treatment facility to address Defendant’s serious mental health issues as well as her chemical dependency issues. Defendant *28was ordered to pay all fines, costs, fees, and any other financial obligations ordered by the sentencing court in the original Judgment entered July 15, 2010. Defendant received credit for thirty-two (32) days previously served. Defendant did not receive any credit for street time. The sentence in DC-09-092 was ordered to run concurrently with the sentences in DC-09-091, DC-09-093, and DC-09-108.

Done in open Court this 8th day of April, 2016.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2016.

On April 8, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant was present and was represented by Peter Ohman, of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member and Hon. Brad Newman, Member.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,100,537
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,259,237
<PP&E>                                      45,566,509
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,553,183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,311,564
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          367,529
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,629,547
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,311,564
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,149,851
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,410,881
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,738,970
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,738,970
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,738,970
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 09-8623.

#### Jose C. Lopez, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

559 U.S. 1013, 130 S. Ct. 1897,

176 L. Ed. 2d 376,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2655.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 12.1**CONSOLIDATED FIXED CHARGE COMPUTATION FOR SOLECTRON CORPORATION ($ in Million):               Year Ended August 31   2005  2004  2003 Earnings (losses):            Net income (loss) $3.4  $(177.4) $(3,452.6)Discontinued operations (income) loss, net of tax  (13.9)  (85.0)  443.7 Income tax (benefit) expense  15.7   (3.3)  525.5           Income (loss) from continuing operations beforeincome tax (benefit) expense $5.2  $(265.7) $(2,483.4)Add back: fixed charges  78.7   172.1   236.2           Earningsfrom continuing operations before fixed charges  83.9   (93.6)  (2,247.2)          Fixed Charges:            Interest portion of rent expenses $22.2  $26.8  $29.1 Interest expense  56.5   145.3   207.1             $78.7  $172.1  $236.2                        Ratio ofearnings from continuing operations to fixed charges  1.1   —   —           Deficiency of earnings to fixed charges $—  $(265.7) $(2,483.4)
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 3.1.4


DEAN HELLER                                                      FY03-47678
Secretary of State
204 North Carson Street, Suite 1
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4299
(775) 684-5708
Website: secretaryofstate.biz                                    FILED C8698-01
                                                                 DEC 31 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                         FOR NEVADA PROFIT CORPORATIONS
              (Pursuant to NRS 78.380 - Before Issuance of Stock)
                             - Remit in Duplicate -

1. Name of Corporation: Point 2 Point Services, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers, if
available):
     Change the name of the corporation to:

     Parr Development, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The undersigned declare that they constitute at least two-thirds of the
incorporators [X] or of the board of directors [X]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The undersigned affirmatively declare that to the date of this certificate,
no stock of the corporation has been issued.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Signatures:


/s/ signature
---------------------------------            -------------------------------
Signature                                    Signature


IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and remit the proper
fees may cause this filing to be rejected.
No. 09-8452.

#### Tony Edward Powell, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 957, 130 S. Ct. 1553,

176 L. Ed. 2d 142,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1445.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 11-7437.

#### Joshua Cruz, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1131, 132 S. Ct. 1051,

181 L. Ed. 2d 771,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 106.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 657 F.3d 811.
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,132]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 5, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official, on behalf of workers of Blount, Inc., Milwaukie, Oregon.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of February 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E9-4405 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P