alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 3 (Thursday, January 4, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 472-473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00044]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Chapter I

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0022]


Revisions to the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the availability of the final 
policy Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide (PAPPG).

DATES: FEMA applies the revisions in this policy to incidents declared 
on or after August 23, 2017, or to any application for assistance that, 
as of January 1, 2018 is pending before

[[Page 473]]

FEMA, or to any application for assistance that has been denied, where 
a challenge to that denial is not yet finally resolved as of January 1, 
2018.

ADDRESSES: This final policy is available online at http://www.regulations.gov and on FEMA's website at http://www.fema.gov. The 
final policy and supporting documents are available at http://www.regulations.gov under docket ID FEMA-2016-0022. You may also view a 
hard copy of the final policy at the Office of Chief Counsel, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, 8NE, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 
20472.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Logan, Division Director, 
Public Assistance, 202-786-0816.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document announces the availability of 
the Third Edition of the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide 
(PAPPG). The Third Edition revises a statutory and regulatory 
interpretation related to the eligibility of certain private nonprofit 
facilities for Public Assistance (PA) under 42 U.S.C. 5172, 42 U.S.C. 
5122(11), and 44 CFR 206.221. Specifically, Third Edition clarifies 
that private nonprofit houses of worship will not be singled out for 
disfavored treatment within the ``community centers'' subcategory of PA 
nonprofit applicants. Further discussion regarding these revisions is 
contained in the Foreword to the PAPPG.
    This final policy does not have the force or effect of law.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.

    Dated: January 2, 2018.
Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-00044 Filed 1-2-18; 4:45 pm]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7046

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TONY MARICHAL SHARP, a/k/a TJ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00237-D-2)

Submitted: December 16, 2021 Decided: December 20, 2021

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Marichal Sharp, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tony Marichal Sharp appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion and his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), 

as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Regarding

the denial of relief under § 2255, the district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck 

v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable 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 Sharp has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this 

portion of the appeal.

Turning to the denial of Sharp’s compassionate release motion, we review the 

district court’s order for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 

329 (4th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, No. 21-5624, 2021 WL 4733616 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2021). 

“A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider 
3

judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous 

factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 

151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not warrant release. Therefore, we affirm this portion of the 

district court’s order. We deny the motion to seal. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART,

DISMISSED IN PART
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10392

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DARNELL RANDOLPH COLLIER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:18-CR-58-1

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Darnell Randolph 

Collier has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Collier has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 16, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10392 Document: 00515237459 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2019
No. 19-10392

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-10392 Document: 00515237459 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2019
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (1115).                    

*Date and Time:*                         May 1, 2009, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. (EDT).                    

*Place:*                         The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1235, Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Open.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Maggie Whiteman, Office of the Assistant Director, Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1105, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8900.                    

*Minutes:*                         May be obtained from the contact person listed above.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To discuss strategic priorities in computing. To advise NSF on the impact of its policies, programs and activities on the CISE community. To provide advice to the Assistant Director/CISE on issues related to long-range planning, and to form ad hoc subcommittees to carry out needed studies and tasks.                    

*Agenda:*                         Report from the Assistant Director. Discussion of research, education, diversity, workforce issues in IT and long-range funding outlook.                    

Dated: March 26, 2009.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

 [FR Doc. E9-7091 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Steven M. SANDT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106364

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: February 13, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Mary S. Choi, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Julia E. Neidhardt, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

*697Steven Sandt ("Sandt") appeals from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment of the motion court denying his Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.1 On July 12, 2016, Sandt pleaded guilty to the charges of possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia and in an unrelated case to the charge of stealing. On December 12, 2016, Sandt filed his pro-se motion under Rule 24.035 and timely amended on May 30, 2017, after an extension was granted and both the guilty plea and sentencing transcripts had been filed. The motion court held an evidentiary hearing on October 23, 2017 at which both Sandt and plea counsel testified.

Sandt contends he received ineffective assistance of plea counsel, raising two points on appeal: (1) plea counsel coerced him to plead guilty by telling him he would likely lose at trial because of the witnesses' statements in the police reports and the proposed testimony from the confidential informant; and (2) plea counsel failed to move for a hearing under *Franks v. Delaware,*438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978) to support her Motion to Suppress upon Sandt's suspicion the undisclosed confidential informant was lying.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for use of the parties setting forth the reasons for the decision.

Finding no clear error, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

All rule citations are to Missouri Supreme Court rules (2016) unless otherwise indicated.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, 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.

October 20, 2015

d1019 

# Order

Clerk October 20, 2015

152126(39)

ANGEL BARTLETT,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v SC: 152126

COA: 327262

MAHS: 14

- 023423

- DHS

KALAMAZOO COUNTY DEPARTMENT

OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent

- Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September

23, 2015 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order

was entered erroneously.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 2 2

- 1037

_____________________________
A LANA S AVELL , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Shonna Young Gay , Judge

.
November 15, 2023

P ER C URIAM

. Appellant Alana Savell appeals her conviction s and sentence s , after a jury trial, for two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm . She raises four issues challenging the trial court’s rulings on an alleged discovery violation, certain evidentiary rulings
, and allow ing certain questions by the State during cross

- examination of Appellant

. Finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion, we affirm on the se issues

. See Smiley v. State , 295 So. 3d 156, 166 (Fla. 2020) (citing Andres v. State , 254 So. 3d 283, 293 (Fla. 2018) ) (applying an “abuse of discretion standard to review a trial court’s ruling on an alleged discovery violation”); Mitchum v. State , 345 So. 3d 398, 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (citing Penalver v. State , 926 So. 2d 1118, 1132 (Fla. 2006)) (“Generally, an appell ate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion.”).2 Appellant also raises two issues challenging the trial court’s imposition of costs of prosecution under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2016), and denials of her motion s to correct these portions of her sentence under rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure . The court’s imposition of these costs is affirmed. Parks v. State

, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1524, 2023 WL 4924857 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 2, 2023) ; Robinson v. State , 256 So. 3d 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)

.

A FFIRMED

.

O STERHAUS , C.J.

, and R OWE and B ILBREY , J J
., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub , Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appell ee

.
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.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board,                         *Telephone:*                         703-518-6304.                    

Mary Rupp,

Board Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-6738 Filed 3-23-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
**Exhibit 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Ramón M. Ruiz-Comas, President and Chief Executive Officer of Triple-S ManagementCorporation (the Corporation), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
1.  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the period ended March 31, 2005 (theReport) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and ExchangeAct of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and;
2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.     Date: May 12, 2005 By: /s/ Ramón M. Ruiz-Comas       Ramón M. Ruiz-Comas
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Environmental Energy Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that: 

1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Form 10-QSB") of the Company complies in all material respects with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

/s/ A. Leon Blaser

A. Leon Blaser, Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 14, 2004
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Mechanisms of Aging.                    

*Date:*                         February 7, 2018.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                              ( print page 388)    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Residence Inn, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Nijaguna Prasad, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9667,                         *nijaguna.prasad@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 28, 2017.

David Clary, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-28416 Filed 1-2-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Environmental Energy Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that: 

1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Form 10-QSB") of the Company complies in all material respects with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

/s/ Greg Holsted

Greg Holsted, Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 14, 2004
Exhibit 4(g)


 


PROTECTIVE LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY
• {P. O. BOX 10648 • BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA

35202-0648}


 


BENEFIT BASED FEE ENDORSEMENT


FOR


VARIABLE ANNUITY DEATH BENEFIT RIDERS


 


We are adding the following
provisions to the Variable Annuity Death Benefit Rider attached to your
Contract:


 


Benefit
Cost - The cost for the death benefit is equal, on an
annualized basis, to { 0.10% } of the average death benefit value on the Valuation Days
described in the next paragraph.


 


Monthly
Fee - Once each month while the Variable Annuity Death
Benefit Rider is in force, we will calculate the fee for the death benefit and
deduct that amount from the Contract Value. The monthly fee is calculated as of
the end of the Valuation Period that includes the same day of the month as the
Effective Date, or the last Valuation Period of the month if that date does not
occur during the month for which the fee is being calculated. The fee is
deducted from the Contract Value as of the next Valuation Period.


 


Calculating
the Monthly Fee - We calculate the monthly fee using
the formula below:


 


Monthly Fee  =  [ 1 – ( 1 – { 0.10% } )1/12]
x  DBV , where


 


DBV  =  is
the value of the death benefit as of the calculation date.


 


Deducting
the Monthly Fee - We will deduct the monthly fee as of
the Valuation Period immediately following the Valuation Period for which it
was calculated. The monthly fee will be deducted pro rata from the Allocation
Options in the same proportion that the value of the Allocation Option bears to
the total Contract Value. We will not assess any applicable surrender charge on
these deductions and the deductions will not reduce any penalty free surrender
amount available under the Contract.


 


Signed for the Company and made
a part of the Contract as of the Effective Date.


 


PROTECTIVE LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE
COMPANY


 


	
  

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  { Secretary }
Jeremy Namann NUGENT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-4915

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.