alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 33322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13348]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; Newborn Screening Pilot Studies.
    Date: August 6, 2021.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, NIH, 6710 B Rockledge Drive, Rm. 2131D, 
Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National 
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6710B 
Rockledge Drive, Rm. 2131D, Bethesda, MD 20817, (301) 435-6680, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#394a5258575d584a58795458505517575051175e564f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cbb8a0aaa5afaab8aa8ba6aaa2a7e5a5a2a3e5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.865, 
Research for Mothers and Children, National Institutes of Health, 
HHS)

    Dated: June 14, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-13348 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In re Jeffrey L. PHIFER, Petitioner.

No. 11-1393.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2011.

Decided: June 28, 2011.

*175Jeffrey L. Phifer, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey L. Phifer petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging defendants have failed to timely respond to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to order a response. We find there has been no undue delay in the management of this litigation by the district court. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
ACCEPTED 04-15-00162-CR FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 4/29/2015 5:47:40 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JOHN J. O'BRIEN, III, ESQ.,

Petitioner

v.

JACQUELINE TUCKER,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 391 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of February, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Andrew M. OBRIECHT, petitioner, v. Brian FOSTER, Warden.

No. 13-7199.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
#### COMMERCIAL BANK, Respondent, v. CATTO et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by the Commercial Baulk against Beaman Catto, impleaded, etc.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. See 43 N. Y. Supp. 777: 45 N. Y. Supp. 1136; and 46 N. Y. Supp. 983.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28435-28436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13155]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

[Treasury Order Number 170-09]


Direction to the Director, United States Secret Service, to Close 
Streets Necessary To Make the White House Perimeter Secure; Delegation 
of Authority

May 19, 1995.
    As Secretary of the Treasury, I am authorized to direct the Secret 
Service to take any and all appropriate action to protect the President 
of the United States and other protectees as described in 18 U.S.C. 
3056(a). In furtherance of these responsibilities, Secretary Bentsen 
commenced a review of the security arrangments at the White House (the 
Review). The Review is not able to identify any alternative to 
prohibiting vehicular traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue that would ensure 
the protection of the President and others in the White House Complex 
from explosive devices carried by vehicles near the perimeter.
    Therefore, I have determined based upon the Review's work and 
conclusions that it is necessary to make secure the perimeter of the 
White House.
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, 
including, but not limited to, the authority vested by 31 U.S.C. 321, 
18 U.S.C. 3056 and 3 U.S.C. 202, it is ordered that:
    1. The Director, United States Secret Service, is directed to close 
to vehicular traffic the following streets in order to secure the 
perimeter of the White House: (i) The segment of Pennsylvania Avenue, 
Northwest, in front of the White House between Madison Place, 
Northwest, and 17th Street, Northwest; and (ii) State Place, Northwest, 
and the segment of South Executive Avenue, Northwest, that connects 
into State Place, Northwest (see attached map).
    2. I hereby delegate to the Director, United States Secret Service, 
all necessary authority to carry out such street closings.
    3. This Order shall take effect May 19, 1995.
Robert E. Rubin,
Secretary of the Treasury.
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P

[[Page 28436]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN31MY95.000


[FR Doc. 95-13155 Filed 5-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-C
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

I,
Huajun Yu, Chief Financial Officer of Cougar Holdings Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| |  |  | the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ HUAJUN YUHuajun YuChief Financial OfficerMarch 27, 2006
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5


                      THIRD AMENDMENT TO SERVICES AGREEMENT


                  THIRD AMENDMENT TO SERVICES AGREEMENT, dated as of March 31,
2001, by and between VECTOR GROUP LTD., a Delaware corporation ("VGR"), having
an office at 100 S.E. Second Street, 32nd Floor, Miami, Florida 33131, and
LIGGETT GROUP INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), having an office at
100 Maple Lane, Mebane, North Carolina 27302-8160.

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

                  WHEREAS, Brooke Management Inc. ("BMI") and the Company are
parties to a Services Agreement, dated as of February 26, 1991, by and between
BMI and the Company, as amended by a First Amendment to Services Agreement,
dated as of November 30, 1993, and a Second Amendment to Services Agreement,
dated as of October 1, 1995 (the Agreement, as so amended, hereinafter referred
to as the "Services Agreement").

                  WHEREAS, pursuant to such Second Amendment to Services
Agreement, with the consent of the Company, BMI assigned to Brooke Group Ltd.,
and Brooke Group Ltd. assumed, the rights and obligations embodied in the
Services Agreement (the "Assignment");

                  WHEREAS, Vector Group Ltd. ("VGR") is the successor to Brooke
Group Ltd; and

                  WHEREAS, VGR and the Company wish to further extend the term
of the Services Agreement on the terms set forth below;

                  NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be legally
bound, hereby agree as follows:

<PAGE>

                  1. Section 2 of the Services Agreement is hereby amended to
provide for a termination date of November 30, 2006.

                  2. Except as amended hereby, the terms and provisions of the
Services Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this
Amendment to the Services Agreement as of the date first above written.

                                            VECTOR GROUP LTD.


                                            By: /S/ Richard J. Lampen
                                                -------------------------------
                                                 Richard J. Lampen
                                                 Executive Vice President

                                            LIGGETT GROUP INC.


                                            By: /S/ Charles M. Kingan
                                                -------------------------------
                                                 Charles M. Kingan
                                                 Vice President and Chief
                                                 Financial Officer


                                       2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angelo Torres, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagaña, J.), rendered April 16, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a maximum of four years.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant has not preserved for appellate review the issue of the sufficiency of the plea allocution *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Bell,*47 NY2d 839; *People v Mattocks,*100 AD2d 944; *People v Lawrence,*100 AD2d 944; *People v Ortiz,*105 AD2d 809). Furthermore, were we to review this issue in the interest of justice, vacatur of the plea would not be required because the allocution was sufficient *(People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

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.

 February 3, 2017

p0131

Order 

Clerk

February 3, 2017

154247

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 154247

COA: 322473

Muskegon CC: 12-061794-FH

JOSHUA LEVI ALGER,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 16, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment 

holding that a defect in the plea proceeding occurred requiring the trial court to permit the 

defendant to withdraw his pleas. Where the defendant knowingly pleaded no contest 

being aware of the maximum possible prison sentences he was facing, he did not 

establish that an error occurred in the plea proceeding that would entitle him to have his 

plea set aside. MCR 6.310(C). We REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration of the coercion issue left unaddressed by that court. If the Court of Appeals 

determines that the issue lacks merit, in light of the prosecutor’s concession that the 

defendant is properly characterized as a third habitual offender, it shall remand this case 

to the Muskegon Circuit Court and order that the defendant be resentenced as a third 

habitual offender.

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Gideon Contracting, LLC ) ASBCA No. 63560

)

Under Contract No. FA8101

- 16

- D

- 0004 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Robert L. Magrini, Esq.

Evan B. Gatewood, Esq.

Tanner B. France, Esq.

Hayes Magrini & Gatewood

Oklahoma City, OK

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Caryl A. Potter III, Esq.

Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney

Michael J. Farr, Esq.

Trial Attorney

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE HERZFELD

The parties have resolved their dispute and jointly request that the Board enter

judgment in favor of appellant.

It is the Board ’ s decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b) , and the

parties ’ stipulation and agreement, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a consent

judgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of $165,000

. This amount is inclusive of Contract Disputes Act interest. No further interest shall be

paid.

Dated: February 8 , 2024

(Signatures continued) D ANIEL S. HERZFELD

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals2 I concur

OWEN C. WILSON

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals I concur

J. REID PROUTY

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63560

, Appeal of Gideon

Contracting, LLC , rendered in conformance with the Board ’ s Charter.

Dated: February 9, 2024

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF
                               LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                                       OF
                     THE NEWKIRK MASTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

      The Newkirk Master Limited Partnership, a limited partnership organized
under the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (the "Act"), for the
purpose of amending and restating its Certificate of Limited Partnership filed
with the office of the Secretary of State of Delaware on October 11, 2001,
hereby certifies that its Certificate of Limited Partnership is amended and
restated to read in its entirety as follows:

      1. The name of the Partnership is The Newkirk Master Limited Partnership.

      2. The address of the Partnership's registered office in the State of
Delaware is c/o Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400,
Wilmington, New Castle County, Delaware 19808. The name of its registered agent
at such address is Corporation Service Company.

      3. The name and business address of the general partner of the Partnership
is

            Newkirk Realty Trust, Inc.
            7 Bulfinch Place
            Suite 500
            P.O. Box 9507
            Boston, Massachusetts 02114

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amended and Restated Certificate of Limited
Partnership, which restates and integrates and also further amends the
Certificate of Limited Partnership as heretofore amended or supplemented, has
been duly executed as of the 7th day of November, 2005 and is being filed in
accordance with Section 17-210 of the Act by a general partner thereunto duly
authorized and by each general partner designated herein as a new general
partner.

                                              NEWKIRK REALTY TRUST, INC.
                                              General Partner


                                              By: /s/ Peter Braverman
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Peter Braverman
                                                  President
Jean Clifton CONNOR, Jr., petitioner, v. TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.

No. 13-6746.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James SCOTT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7682.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 14, 2011.

Decided: June 29, 2011.

James Scott, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Scott, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Scott 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.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**MUHAMMAD AZIZ,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**HONORABLE SHEILA WOODS**
**SKIPPER,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 149 EM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 21st day of January, 2016, the Application for L eave to File** 

**Original Process is** GRANTED **, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is** DENIED **, and the**

**Prothonotary is** DIRECTED **to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.**

**Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this** 

**matter.**
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

C.R.T., A CHILD,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5D17-0962

 LT No. 15-CJ-005460-A-OR

 16-CJ-000132-A-OR

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

________________________________/

Opinion filed April 4, 2017

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,

A Case of Original Jurisdiction.

Robert Wesley, Public Defender, and Aaron 

Zeilberger, Assistant Public Defender, 

Orlando, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

C.R.T. petitions for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his two concurrent thirtyday sentences to secure detention for contempt of court violate section 985.037(2), 

Florida Statutes (2017). We grant the petition.
2

On March 17, 2017, the juvenile court held Petitioner in direct contempt of court in 

both his pending cases, (16-CJ-000132-A-OR and 15-CJ-005460-A-OR), for "yelling and 

cussing at the court and his mother." In each case, he was sentenced to concurrent thirtyday sentences in secure detention. 

On March 29, 2017, Petitioner admitted to violating his probation in both cases.

The court revoked and terminated the probationary terms and sentenced him to new 

terms. The court set aside the release order and ordered that Petitioner remain detained 

until the thirty-day contempt sentences were completed. This was error.

"A delinquent child who has been held in direct or indirect contempt may be placed 

in a secure detention facility not to exceed 5 days for a first offense and not to exceed 15 

days for a second or subsequent offense." § 985.037(2), Fla. Stat. "There is no ambiguity 

on the face of the statute; trial courts are explicitly authorized to sentence a juvenile to up 

to five days in secure detention for a first act of contempt, and up to fifteen days in secure 

detention for each additional act of contempt." J.M. v. Gargett, 101 So. 3d 352, 356 (Fla. 

2012). Petitioner's maximum possible sentence in the case with the previous contempt 

(16-CJ-000132-A-OR) was fifteen days. Petitioner's maximum possible sentence in the 

case without a previous contempt (15-CJ-005460-A-OR) was five days. Accordingly, both 

thirty-day sentences are illegal and Petitioner, who has been held for seventeen days, is 

entitled to immediate release.

PETITION GRANTED.

ORFINGER, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.