alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3845-3846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1253]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 9000-0066]


Clearance Request for Professional Employee Compensation Plan

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration 
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance 
(9000-0066).

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 
(44 U.S.C. 3501), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat 
has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to 
review and approve an extension of a currently approved information 
collection requirement concerning Professional Employee Compensation 
Plan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Beverly Fayson, Office of Federal Acquisition Policy, GSA (202) 501-
4755.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose

    OFPP Policy Letter No. 78-2, March 29, 1978, requires that all 
professional employees shall be compensated fairly and properly. 
Implementation of this requires that a total compensation plan setting 
forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees 
with supporting data be submitted to the contracting officer for 
evaluation.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Public reporting burden for this collection of information is 
estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate 
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 

[[Page 3846]]
suggestions for reducing this burden, to General Services 
Administration, FAR Secretariat, 18th & F Streets, NW., Room 4037, 
Washington, DC 20405, and the FAR Desk Officer, Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 
20503.
    The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows: Respondents, 
5,340; responses per respondent, 1; total annual responses, 5,340; 
preparation hours per response, .5; and total response burden hours, 
2,670.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals

    Requester may obtain copies of OMB applications or justifications 
from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VRS), Room 
4037, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB 
Control No. 9000-0066, Professional Compensation Plan, in all 
correspondence.

    Dated: December 16, 1994.
Beverly Fayson,
FAR Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 95-1253 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-34-M
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 20, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40214 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee

v. MAGDALENO ALCANTAR-CHAIDEZ Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-02-CR-512-1

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Magdaleno Alcantar-Chaidez appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, on charges that he conspired to possess more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with the intent to distribute it, and possessed more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with the intent to distribute it, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. He contends that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support his convictions.No. 03-40214 -2- In effect, Alcantar-Chaidez is challenging the district court’s denial of his motion for acquittal, an issue which we review de

novo . See United States v. Leed , 981 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir. 1993). Viewing the evidence produced at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established Alcantar-Chaidez’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for both offenses. See United States v. Jaramillo , 42 F.3d 920, 922-23 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Ivy , 973 F.2d 1184, 1888 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 12



Boeing Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries
Computation of Ratio of Income to Fixed Charges


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                    Nine months ended
                                                                                      September 30,
(Dollars in millions)                                                             1999              1998
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income:
<S>                                                                        <C>               <C>
    Income before provision for income taxes                               $         78.2    $         78.4
    Fixed charges                                                                    98.3              98.6
                                                                           ------------------------------------
    Income before provision for income taxes and fixed charges             $        176.5    $        177.0
                                                                           ====================================

Fixed charges:
    Interest expense                                                       $         95.7    $         95.6
    Preferred stock dividends                                                         2.6               3.0
                                                                           ------------------------------------
                                                                           $         98.3    $         98.6
                                                                           ====================================

Ratio of income before provision for income taxes and fixed
    charges to fixed charges                                                       1.80              1.80
                                                                           ====================================

</TABLE>
J. Jesus PINEDA-PINEDA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6753.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Timothy S. DUNN, Michael A. Vallone, William S. Cover, Robert W. Hopper, and Edward Bartoli, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-1056.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

*2826On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further consideration in light of *Peugh v. United States,* --- U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2072, 186 L.Ed.2d 84 (2013).
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 32934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP)--CE21-006: Rigorously Evaluating Programs and 
Policies To Prevent Child Sexual Abuse (CSA); Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Disease, 
Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel 
(SEP)--CE21-006: Rigorously Evaluating Programs and Policies to Prevent 
Child Sexual Abuse (CSA); July 13-14, 2021, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT.
    The videoconference meeting was published in the Federal Register 
on March 29, 2021, Volume 86, Number 58, page 16369.
    The meeting is being amended to update the contact person and 
should read as follows:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aisha Wilkes, M.P.H., Scientific 
Review Officer, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, 
4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop S106-9, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, 
Telephone: (404) 639-6473; Email: [email protected].
    The meeting is closed to the public.
    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-13121 Filed 6-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
```
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1779 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Fenamidone. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2005 

Mr. HULSHOF introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Fenamidone. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FENAMIDONE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.05.51 (5S)–3,5-Dihydro-5- methyl2-(methylthio)- 5-phenyl-3- 

(phenylamino)- 4H-imidazol4-one (CAS No. 161326–34– 

7) (provided for in subheading 2933.29.35) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 1779 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6370

STACY L. EWELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief

District Judge. (CA-02-622-AM)

Submitted: June 30, 2004 Decided: August 10, 2004

Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacy L. Ewell, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Stacy L. Ewell 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 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Ewell 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
* 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. 97-40483 Conference Calendar

CLAVIS A. CLAYTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:96-CV-722

- - - - - - - - - - August 14, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Clavis A. Clayton, a/k/a “Iman Isa al Masih,” Texas prisoner #646468, filed a notice of appeal on April 17, 1997, from the district court’s January 17, 1997, dismissal of his complaint under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the district court’s April 7, 1997, denial of his motion for a new trial. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660No. 97-40483 -2- (5th Cir. 1987). A timely notice of appeal is a prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by this court. United States v.
Carr , 979 F.2d 51, 55 (5th Cir. 1992). Because Clayton filed his motion for a new trial more than ten days after entry of the January 17, 1997, judgment, it is treated as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Harcon Barge Co. v. D. & G Boat Rentals, Inc. , 784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 1986)(en banc). A Rule 60(b) motion does not suspend the running of the 30-day appeal period and does not bring up the underlying judgment for consideration. See Fed R. App. P. 4(a)(4); Matter of Ta Chi Navigation (Panama) Corp. S.A. , 728 F.2d 699, 703 (5th Cir. 1984). Because Clayton did not file his notice of appeal until April 17, 1997, more than 60 days after the January 17, 1997, order, this court is without jurisdiction to review the district court's judgment dismissing Clayton's RFRA complaint.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4); Aucoin v. K-Mart Apparel Fashion Corp. , 943 F.2d 6, 8 (5th Cir. 1991). Jurisdiction in this case is limited to review of the district court’s denial of Clayton’s motion for new trial. See Aucoin , 943 F.2d at 8. Because Clayton failed to address in his brief any error in the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, he has abandoned the only issue before the court. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).No. 97-40483 -3- Clayton’s motions for injunction and his motion to stay the proceedings to correct the brief are DENIED. Clayton’s appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d. 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Clayton that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Clayton is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED; MOTIONS DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1685 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1685

To amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to make permanent the moratorium 
 on certain taxes relating to the Internet and to electronic commerce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2005

Mr. Cox (for himself, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Upton, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Wilson 
  of South Carolina, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Ms. 
   Eshoo, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Fossella, Mr. 
Hayworth, Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, Mr. Mack, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Otter, 
    Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Paul, Mr. Herger, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. 
Boustany, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. 
 Weller, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Terry, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Gary G. Miller of 
    California, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Weldon of 
 Florida, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Aderholt, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, 
    Miss McMorris, Mr. McHugh, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Walsh, Mr. 
Manzullo, and Mr. Hostettler) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to make permanent the moratorium 
 on certain taxes relating to the Internet and to electronic commerce.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Internet Consumer Protection Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT.

    The Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended--
            (1) in section 1101(a) by striking ``during the period 
        beginning November 1, 2003, and ending November 1, 2007'', and
            (2) by striking section 1104.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clayton Pratcher, Appellant.

— Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (De Makos, J.), rendered May 20, 1982, affirmed *(see, People v Johnson,*105 AD2d 711; *People v White,*105 AD2d 860; *People v Williams,*105 AD2d 860). O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECURITIES
ACT RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Del Taco Restaurant Properties I;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and
15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial
reporting.
 Date: November 14, 2005
    
    /s/ Kevin K. MoriartyKevin K. MoriartyDirector, Chairman andChief Executive Officer
#### SUNDBERG, Respondent, v. YONKERS SAVINGS BANK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 13, 1913.)

Action by Anga M. Sundberg against the Yonkers Savings Bank.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimopsly affirmed, with costs.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12

INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK
DIVIDENDS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 AND 2002
(Dollars in thousands)

2003
    
    2002(Unaudited)Earnings:Net Income
    
    $
    242,249
    
    
    $
    254,160Add:Provision for income taxes
    
    
    120,906
    
    
    
    132,777Fixed charges
    
    
    487,783
    
    
    
    450,592Less:Capitalized interest
    
    
    24,579
    
    
    
    30,446Earnings as adjusted (A)
    
    $
    826,359
    
    
    $
    807,083Preferred dividend requirements
    
    
    2,056
    
    
    
    12,406Ratio of income before provision for income taxes to net income
    
    
    150
    %
    
    
    152
    %Preferred dividend factor on pretax basis
    
    $
    3,084
    
    
    $
    18,857Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    
    456,100
    
    
    
    407,078Capitalized interest
    
    
    24,579
    
    
    
    30,446Interest factor of rents
    
    
    7,104
    
    
    
    13,068Fixed charges as adjusted (B)
    
    
    487,783
    
    
    
    450,592Fixed charges and preferred stock dividends (C)
    
    $
    490,867
    
    
    $
    469,449Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(A) divided by (B)
    
    
    1.69x
    
    
    
    1.79xRatio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock dividends
(A) divided by (C)
    
    
    1.68x
    
    
    
    1.72x


-25-