alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24692-24698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11271]




[[Page 24691]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Office of Management and Budget





_______________________________________________________________________



Budget Rescissions and Deferrals; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / 
Notices  
[[Page 24692]] 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Budget Rescissions and Deferrals

To the Congress of the United States:

    In accordance with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
Act of 1974, I herewith report three rescission proposals, totaling 
$132.0 million.
    The proposed rescissions affect the Departments of Justice and 
Transportation, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
William J. Clinton
THE WHITE HOUSE,
    May 2, 1995.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-M
                                                                       
    [[Page 24693]]
    
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN09MY95.000


[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN09MY95.001


[[Page 24694]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN09MY95.002


[[Page 24695]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN09MY95.003


[[Page 24696]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN09MY95.004


[[Page 24697]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN09MY95.005


[[Page 24698]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN09MY95.006


[FR Doc. 95-11271 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JOHN PAVLEKOVICH and TAMARA 

PAVLEKOVICH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING 

PHARMACY, INC. d/b/a NEW 

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER, 

BARRY AND LISA CADDEN, and 

GREGORY CONIGLIARO,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:12-CV-819-RL-CAN

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Pursuant to L.R. 6.1., Defendants Barry and Lisa Cadden, and Greg Conigliaro 

(“Defendants”), by counsel, hereby move this Court for an extension of time to respond to 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint, up to and including April 19, 2013. Defendants’ Answer is currently due 

February 18, 2013. Plaintiffs’ counsel has been consulted and has no objection to the requested 

extension. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants, by counsel, pray for an Order allowing Defendants up to and 

including April 19, 2013 to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and for all other relief just and 

proper in the premises.

LEWIS WAGNER LLP

By: /s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo

DINA M. COX, #18590-49

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO, #28058-49

ROBERT M. BAKER IV, #25471-49

JANELLE M. KILIES, #30708-49

Attorneys for Defendants 

case 3:12-cv-00819-RL-CAN document 10 filed 02/14/13 page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on February 14, 2013 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to the 

following: 

Douglas D. Small

FOLEY & SMALL

1002 E Jefferson Blvd

South Bend IN 46617

Counsel for Plaintiffs

/s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200

Indianapolis, IN 46202

Phone: (317) 237-0500

FAX: (317) 630-2790

kshaheed-diallo@lewiswagner.com

Q:\NECC\21 - Pavlekovich\Federal Pleadings\MET.docx

case 3:12-cv-00819-RL-CAN document 10 filed 02/14/13 page 2 of 2
In re Juan REYES, petitioner.

No. 12-9370.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11256]



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



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Kansas State University, Notice of Decision on Application for 
Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 94-142. Applicant: Kansas State University, 
Manhattan, KS 66506-5501. Instrument: IR Mass Spectrometer System, 
Model 20-20. Manufacturer: Europa Scientific, United Kingdom. Intended 
Use: See notice at 60 FR 442, January 4, 1995.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as it is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the 
United States. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides: (1) dual 
isotope capabilities for carbon and nitrogen, (2) trace gas analysis 
for CH<INF>4, CO<INF>2, N<INF>2O and (3) <SUP>13C analysis in areas 
currently hindered by limitations on <SUP>14C based analysis. The 
National Institutes of Health advises in its memorandum dated March 20, 
1995 that (1) these capabilities are pertinent to the applicant's 
intended purpose and (2) it knows of no domestic instrument or 
apparatus of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument for 
the applicant's intended use.
    We know of no other instrument or apparatus of equivalent 
scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being manufactured 
in the United States.


Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 95-11256 Filed 5-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-F
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID CHAD GLOW,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

and HOWARD REDMOND, 

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-1933 MMC

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO

TRANSFER VENUE

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ Joint Status Statement, filed June 6, 2008, in which

the parties request that the Court “consolidate” the instant action with a related action pending

in the Eastern District of California (“Eastern District”), and that such “consolidated action”

proceed in the Eastern District. (See Joint Status Statement at 2:12-14.) The Court construes

said request as a joint motion to transfer the instant action to the Eastern District for the

convenience of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), in light of overlapping issues

regarding plaintiff’s alleged injury and damages, and in the interest of judicial economy. 

So construed, and good cause appearing for the relief requested, the joint motion is 

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-01933-MMC Document 122 Filed 06/09/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 To the extent the parties seek the additional relief of consolidation of the two

actions, the Court defers to the transferee court with respect to such issue, and,

accordingly, denies the parties’ request to consolidate, without prejudice to the parties

raising the issue, by appropriate motion, in the Eastern District. 

2

hereby GRANTED, and the instant action is hereby transferred to the Eastern District.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01933-MMC Document 122 Filed 06/09/08 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,768,656
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,836,003
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,768,656
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,836,003
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,787,117
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,768,656
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,461
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
Marsha L. PAYTON, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

No. 12-9925.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Exhibit 14

 

MMI Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers and Chief Executive Officer

MMI is committed to the highest standards of ethics and business conduct. This encompasses our relationship with our customers, our suppliers, our shareowners, our competitors, the communities in which we operate, and with each other. All Senior Financial Officers and the Chief Executive Officer will adhere to the following:

- Honest and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships; 
- Avoidance of conflicts of interest, including disclosure to appropriate Senior Financial Officers or the Chief Executive Officer of any material transaction or relationship that reasonably could be expected to give rise to such a conflict; 
- Full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in reports and documents that the company files with, or submits to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and in other public communications made by the company; 
- Compliance with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations; 
- The prompt internal reporting to appropriate Senior Financial Officers or the Chief Executive Officer identified in the code of violations of the code; and 
- Accountability for adherence to the code.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9395-9396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-3966]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Advisory Commission; 
Meeting

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets the schedule for the forthcoming meeting of 
the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Advisory Commission. Notice 
of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463).

    Meeting Date and Time: Friday, March 17, 1995; 9:30 a.m. until 
12 noon.
    Addresses: Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Headquarters, 
Empire, Michigan.
    The agenda for the meeting consist of the Chairman's welcome; 
minutes of the previous meeting; statement of purpose; public input; 
update on park activities; old business; new business; public input; 
next meeting date; adjournment. The meeting is open to the public.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Advisory Commission was established by 
the law that established the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, 
Public Law 91-479. The purpose of the Commission, according to its 
charter, is to advise the Secretary of the Interior with respect to 
matters relating to the administration, protection, and development of 
the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, including the establishment 
of zoning by-laws, construction, and administration of scenic roads, 
procurement of land, condemnation of commercial property, an the 
preparation and implementation of the land and water use management 
plan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Miller, Superintendent, Sleeping 
Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, 9922 Front Street, Empire, Michigan 
49630, (616) 326-5134.

    [[Page 9396]] Dated: February 6, 1995.
William W. Schenk,
Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 94-3966 Filed 2-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-17

)

CURTIS D. WITTWER )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on October 11, 2013, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of Count 1 as charged in the four-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 11th day of October, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
Heriberto HUERTA, petitioner, v. Marcia G. SHEIN, et al.

No. 12-1059.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of SinoHub, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), De Hai Li , Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to his knowledge:





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





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








Dated:
       March 31, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      De Hai LiLi
      De HaiChief
      Financial Officer
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 21
- 00335
- CR
EX PARTE MARK HANSON

From the 87th District Court Freestone County, Texas Trial Court No. 02
- 032
- CR
- A

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mark Hanson has filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.07 writ of habeas corpus appl ication by the Court of Criminal Appeals

. The Court of Criminal Appeals and this Court have recognized that “the exclusive post

- conviction remedy in final felony convictions in Texas courts is through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to [Code of Criminal P rocedure article] 11.07.” Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see T EX

. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN
. art. 11.07; Ex parte Mendenhall , 209 S.W.3d 260, 261 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2006, no pet.). Moreover, only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to grant post

- conviction habeas corpus in felony cases. See Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist. ,Ex parte Hanson Page 2 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). We are therefore without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismi ssed for want of jurisdiction. Notwithstanding that we are dismissing this appeal, Hanson may file a motion for rehearing with this Court within 15 days after this opinion and judgment are rendered if he believes this opinion and judgment are erroneously b ased on inaccurate information
or documents. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.1. Moreover, if Hanson desires to have the opinion and judgment of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that petition must be filed with the Court of Crimin al Appeals within 30 days after either the day this Court’s judgment is rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this Court. See id. R. 68.2(a).

MATT JOHNSON Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson , and Justice Smith Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed December 22, 2021 Do not publish [ CR25 ]
#### Lamont A. JOHNSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Alton BASKERVILLE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-7787.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 4, 2004.

Lamont A. Johnson, Appellant pro se.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Lamont A. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Daryl GIBBS, aka Ralph, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10070.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

NANCY ISLAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING 

PHARMACY INC. aka NEW ENGLAND 

COMPOUNDING CENTER, et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00845-JVB-CAN

JUDGE: JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

Pursuant to L.R. 6.1., Defendant Ameridose, LLC (“Defendant”), by counsel, hereby 

move this Court for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, up; to and including 

March 25, 2013. Defendant’s Answer is currently due February 22, 2013. Plaintiff’s counsel 

has been consulted and has no objection to the requested extension 

WHEREFORE, Defendant, by counsel, pray for an Order allowing Defendant up to and 

including March 25, 2013 to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and for all other relief just and 

proper in the premises. 

case 3:12-cv-00845-WCL-CAN document 23 filed 02/21/13 page 1 of 2
2 

013260.000013/1629081.1 

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Knight S. Anderson 

Knight S. Anderson (17216-53) 

Tucker Ellis LLP 

925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1150 

Cleveland, OH 44115-1414 

Tel: 216.592.5000 

Fax: 216.592.5009 

E-mail: knight.anderson@tuckerellis.com 

Attorney for Defendant Ameridose LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on February 21, 2013 using the ECF system that sent notification of this filing to all ECFregistered counsel of record via e-mail generated by the Court’s ECF system. 

 /s/Knight S. Anderson 

Attorney for Defendant Ameridose, LLC 

case 3:12-cv-00845-WCL-CAN document 23 filed 02/21/13 page 2 of 2