alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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-65,092]

      ( print page 14589)    
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 3, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by workers of Detroit Diesel Specialty Tool Company, a division of Detroit Diesel Corporation, a subsidiary of Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Cambridge, Ohio.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.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

Signed at Washington, DC this 16th day of March 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-7134 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Gregory Alan KOKAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC17-807

Supreme Court of Florida.

[January 24, 2018]

Linda McDermott of McClain and McDermott, Wilton Manners, Florida, for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer Ann Donahue, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Gregory Alan Kokal's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Kokal's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. *See* art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Kokal's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in *Hurst v. Florida*, --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in *Hurst v. State* (*Hurst* ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Kokal's appeal pending the disposition of *Hitchcock v. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided *Hitchcock*, Kokal responded to this Court's order to show *908cause arguing why *Hitchcock* should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Kokal's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Kokal is not entitled to relief. Kokal was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death, and his sentence of death became final in 1986. *Kokal v. State*, 492 So.2d 1317, 1319 (Fla. 1986). Thus, *Hurst* does not apply retroactively to Kokal's sentence of death. *See**Hitchcock*, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Kokal's motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Kokal, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court's opinion in *Hitchcock v. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in *Hitchcock*.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive


Officer of Broadleaf Capital Partners, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge, that:





1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Broadleaf Capital Partners, Inc. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Dated: October 3, 2011





/s/ J. Michael King


J. Michael King,


Interim President/CFO








The certifications set forth above are being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act


of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor


shall they be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or


otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section


906, has been provided to Broadleaf Capital Partners, Inc. and will be retained by Broadleaf Capital Partners, Inc. and furnished to the


Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Amendment, dated as of December 31, 2007, to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT is entered into as of the date set forth
below by and between HARRAH’S ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (“Company”) and GARY W. LOVEMAN (“Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, on September 4, 2002 the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement (“Agreement”), as amended on October 31, 2005; 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive jointly desire to modify the Agreement’s existing expiration date of January 1, 2008; 
 THEREFORE, the Company and Executive agree as follows: 
 1. Section 1 of the Agreement is modified to
provide that the Agreement shall expire on the earlier of (i) June 1, 2008, or (ii) the date of the close of the proposed acquisition of the Company by affiliates of TPG and Apollo Management, L.P. (“Acquisition”), provided,
however, that if the Acquisition closes prior to January 1, 2008, the Agreement’s expiration date shall remain January 1, 2008. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have knowingly and voluntarily executed the Agreement as of the day and year first written below. 
  

			
	 GARY W. LOVEMAN
	  	HARRAH’S ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
		
	 /s/ GARY W. LOVEMAN
	  	/s/ MICHAEL D. COHEN
	 	  	 
		
	 Date:                                     
                                        
                           
	  	Date: December 31, 2007
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Brenda A. LEIGH, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-3870

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 29, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reshad Harris LEWIS, aka Rashad Harris Lewis, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-10495.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 19, 2004.

Michael T. Morrissey, Esq., USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marc J. Victor, Esq., Victor & Hall, PLC, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Reshad Harris Lewis appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence of 12 months and 1 day for making false statements with regard to firearm transactions and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 924(a)(1)(A) and (2). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Lewis has filed a brief stating that he finds no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our examination of the brief and our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Hakeem BYRD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-2898

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed October 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
STATE EX REL. Kevin Paul BENOIT v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 17-KH-0007

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 23, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE THIRTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TERREBONNE**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator's application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated an application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a *543second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

WEIMER, J., recused.
Arnold W. FIELDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1601

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Scott BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-2775

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 19, 2018 Rehearing Denied March 23, 2018

Mark V. Murray, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Lewis and Winsor, JJ., concur; Wetherell, J., concurs with opinion.

Wetherell, J., concurring.

I concur in the decision to affirm Appellant's judgment and sentence for violating section 847.0138(2), Florida Statutes (2014), because the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying the special jury instruction Appellant requested and the other issue raised on appeal is meritless. That said, for sake of consistency and completeness, the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases might want to consider amending the standard jury instruction for section 847.0138(2) -*see* Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 11.21-to define the terms "prurient interest" and "morbid interest" as is done in the instructions for other chapter 847 crimes in which those terms are used. *See* Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 24.1-24.6. Those terms are key components of the statutory definition of "harmful to minors"-which is the crux of section 847.0138(2) -and, even if it is not absolutely necessary to define those terms in the jury instructions, see *Russ v. State* , 832 So.2d 901, 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) ("A trial court is under no obligation to define terms in common use and generally understood by the average person."), there is certainly no harm in doing so.
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 981 

Recognizing the importance of Tribal colleges and universities to the United 

States and expressing support for designating the week beginning February 5, 2024, as ‘‘National Tribal Colleges and Universities Week’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2024 

Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance of Tribal colleges and universities to the United States and expressing support for 

designating the week beginning February 5, 2024, as 

‘‘National Tribal Colleges and Universities Week’’. 

Whereas there are 34 accredited Tribal colleges and universities operating on more than 90 campuses in 16 States; 

Whereas Tribal colleges and universities are tribally chartered 

or federally chartered institutions of higher education and 

therefore have a unique relationship with the Federal 

Government; 

Whereas Tribal colleges and universities serve students from 

more than 230 federally recognized Indian Tribes; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 981 IH 

Whereas Tribal colleges and universities offer students access 

to knowledge and skills grounded in cultural traditions 

and values, including indigenous languages, which— 

(1) enhances Indian communities; and 

(2) enriches the United States as a Nation; 

Whereas Tribal colleges and universities provide access to 

high-quality postsecondary educational opportunities 

for— 

(1) American Indians; 

(2) Alaska Natives; and 

(3) other individuals that live in some of the most 

isolated and economically depressed areas in the United 

States; 

Whereas Tribal colleges and universities are accredited institutions of higher education that prepare students to succeed in the global and highly competitive workforce; 

Whereas Tribal colleges and universities have open enrollment policies, and approximately 13 percent of the students at Tribal colleges and universities are non-Indian 

individuals; and 

Whereas the collective mission and the considerable achievements of Tribal colleges and universities deserve national 

recognition: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) expresses support for the designation of 

3 ‘‘National Tribal Colleges and Universities Week’’; 

4 and 

5 (2) calls on the people of the United States and 

6 interested groups to observe ‘‘National Tribal Col7 leges and Universities Week’’ with appropriate acVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:27 Jan 30, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR981.IH HR981

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HRES 981 IH 

1 tivities and programs to demonstrate support for 

2 Tribal colleges and universities. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 1.3
      1.3-1




---



##### 



SHARE HANDLING REGULATIONS
 CHAPTER I  GENERAL PROVISIONS
 (PURPOSE)
 ARTICLE 1
 (SHAREHOLDER REGISTER ADMINISTRATOR)
 ARTICLE 2
 Administrator of Shareholder Register:
    
    The Chuo Mitsui Trust and Banking Company, Limited
33-1, Shiba 3-chome, Minato-ku, TokyoPlace to Perform Duties:
    
    Head office of The Chuo Mitsui Trust and Banking Company, Limited
33-1, Shiba 3-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo
  CHAPTER II  ENTRIES IN REGISTER OF SHAREHOLDERS
 (RECORD OF MATTERS FOR ENTRY IN REGISTER OF SHAREHOLDERS)
 ARTICLE 3
 1.3-2




---



##### 



(NOTIFICATION OF MATTERS FOR ENTRY IN REGISTER OF SHAREHOLDERS)
 ARTICLE 4
 (NOTIFICATION OF STATUTORY REPRESENTATIVE)
 ARTICLE 5
 (NOTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE OF JOINT SHAREHOLDERS)
 ARTICLE 6
 (NOTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE OF CORPORATION)
 ARTICLE 7
 1.3-3




---



##### 



(NOTIFICATION OF PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF NOTICES TO SHAREHOLDERS OR STATUTORY REPRESENTATIVES RESIDING
OVERSEAS)
 ARTICLE 8
 (NOTIFICATIONS THROUGH JASDEC)
 ARTICLE 9
 (REGISTERED PLEDGEES)
 ARTICLE 10 mutatis mutandis
 CHAPTER III  CONFIRMATION OF SHAREHOLDERS
 (CONFIRMATION OF SHAREHOLDERS)
 ARTICLE 11
   1.3-4




---



##### 



mutatis mutandis
 CHAPTER IV  EXERCISE OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS, ETC.
 (EXERCISE OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS, ETC.)
 ARTICLE 12
 CHAPTER V  PURCHASE OF SHARES CONSTITUTING LESS THAN ONE UNIT
 (PURCHASE REQUEST)
 ARTICLE 13
 (EFFECTIVE DATE OF PURCHASE REQUEST)
 ARTICLE 14
 (PURCHASE PRICE)
 ARTICLE 15
 1.3-5




---



##### 



(PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE)
 ARTICLE 16
  (BOOK-ENTRY TRANSFER OF SHARES PURCHASED)
 ARTICLE 17
 CHAPTER VI  SALE OF SHARES CONSTITUTING LESS THAN ONE UNIT
 (SALE REQUEST)
 ARTICLE 18
 (EFFECTIVE DATE OF SALE REQUEST)
 ARTICLE 19
 1.3-6




---



##### 



(SALE REQUESTS EXCEEDING OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF TREASURY STOCK)
 ARTICLE 20
 (SUSPENSION PERIOD FOR ACCEPTING SALE REQUESTS)
 ARTICLE 21
  (SALE PRICE)
 ARTICLE 22
  (BOOK-ENTRY TRANSFER OF SHARES SOLD)
 ARTICLE 23
 1.3-7




---



##### 



CHAPTER VII  EXCEPTION TO SPECIAL ACCOUNTS
 (EXCEPTION TO SPECIAL ACCOUNTS)
 ARTICLE 24
 CHAPTER VIII  REQUEST FOR GENERAL SHAREHOLDERS NOTICE AND FOR INFORMATION PROVISION
 (REQUEST FOR GENERAL SHAREHOLDERS NOTICE)
 ARTICLE 25
      (REQUEST FOR INFORMATION PROVISION)
 1.3-8




---



##### 



ARTICLE 26
        CHAPTER IX  FEES
 (FEES)
 ARTICLE 27
 1.3-9
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50451 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN ANTONIO ESQUIVEL-GARCIA, also known as Juan Antonio Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-97-CR-157-1

- - - - - - - - - - March 5, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Antonio Esquivel-Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Esquivel-Garcia has filed a response and has requested that the court appoint new appellate counsel. Our independent review of the brief, Esquivel’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, Esquivel’s motionNo. 98-50451 -2- for appointment of a new attorney is DENIED, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
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 Homeland Security

###### Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of NMC Global Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, NMC Global Corporation, 1107 Center St., Pasadena, TX 77506, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov*. Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories:                         *http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​*.                    

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of NMC Global Corporation, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on November 12, 2008. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for November 2011.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randall Breaux, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

Dated: March 10, 2009.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. E9-7615 Filed 4-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-06-P
Ronald PRESSLEY, Jr., Petitioner, v. John PALMER, Warden, Florida State Prison, and Julie Jones, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondents.

CASE NO. 1D17-0832

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 13, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Certiorari is denied.