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 Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation (VACOR) will meet virtually on Wednesday, August 4, 2021 and Thursday, August 5, 2021 from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST. The meeting sessions are open to the public.

The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of VA on the rehabilitation needs of Veterans with disabilities and on the administration of VA's Veteran rehabilitation programs. The Committee members will continue to receive briefings on employment programs and services designed to enhance the delivery of services for the rehabilitation potential of Veterans and discuss recommendations to be included in the Committee's next annual comprehensive report.

                    Time will be allocated for receiving oral comments from the public. Members of the public may submit written comments for review by the Committee to Latrese Thompson, Designated Federal Officer, Veterans Benefits Administration (28), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420 or at                     *Latrese.Thompson@va.gov.*                     In the communication, writers must identify themselves and state the organization, association or person(s) they represent. For any members of the public that wish to attend virtually, use WebEx link:                     *https://veteransaffairs.webex.com/​veteransaffairs/​j.php?​MTID=​m9a9bcede8c031636ea67d605367b2b84*.                

*1 (404) 397-1596 USA Toll Number (access code):*                     199 948 1819                

*Meeting password:*                     PTesXmD?442                

Dated: July 2, 2021.

LaTonya L. Small,

Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2021-14605 Filed 7-8-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Michael L. Campbell, Chief Executive Officer of Regal Entertainment Group, certify that:

1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Regal Entertainment Group;

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 officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:



5.
The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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):



Date:
March 14, 2006

| |  | By: | /s/MICHAEL L. CAMPBELLMichael L. Campbell
Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1790** 

PEERLES S INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a s Subrogee o f Right Touch Interiors, Inc. ; EXCELSIOR INSURANCE COMPANY, as Subrogee o f Southeast Church Furniture, Inc. , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,
v. CITY OF GREENSBORO , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Loretta C
. Biggs , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 01104

- LCB

- LPA )

Submitted : December 31, 2015 Decided: January 14, 2016

Before NIEMEYER , SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jay M. Goldstein, GOLDSTEIN LAW PLLC, Albert S. Nalibotsky, SALTZ MATKOV, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant s . Bruce P. Ashley, Patrick M. Kane, Lisa W. Arthur, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs, Peerless Indemn ity Insurance Company and Excelsior Insurance Company, appeal the district court ’ s order granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Greensboro in Plaintiffs’ negligence action
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Peerless Indem. Ins. Co. v. City of Greensboro , No. 1:13

- cv - 01104

- LCB

- LPA (M.D.N.C. June 23, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented i n the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit
      31


CERTIFICATION


I,
      Hideyuki Shiraishi, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Amanasu Technologies
      Corporation;





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this annual 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 annual report;





4.
      I am
      responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
      (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
      we
      have:


a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;


b)
      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
      report (the "Evaluation Date"); and


c)
      presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the
      disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
      Date;





5.
      I have
      disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which
      could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
      and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors
      any
      material weaknesses in internal controls; and


b)
      any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and





6.
      I have
      indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes
      in
      internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
      controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
      corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
      weaknesses.







Date:
      July 25, 2005







/s/
      Hideyuki Shiraishi


________________


Hideyuki
      Shiraishi


President
      and


Principal
      Financial Officer
<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 99.1

                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Michael T. Kennedy, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
Radnor Holdings Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

         The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended September
         27, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
         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 results of operations of
         the Company.

Dated: November 12, 2002                        /s/ Michael T. Kennedy
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Michael T. Kennedy
                                                Chairman of the Board
                                                Chief Executive Officer
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #17027 and #17028; Indiana Disaster Number IN-00075]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Indiana dated 07/06/2021. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 06/18/2021 through 06/19/2021.
 DATES: Issued on 07/06/2021. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 09/07/2021. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:* 04/07/2022.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Jefferson, Monroe. *Contiguous Counties:* Indiana: Brown, Clark, Greene, Jackson, Jennings, Lawrence, Morgan, Owen, Ripley, Scott, Switzerland. Kentucky: Carroll, Trimble. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.625Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
5.760Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.880Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.880Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17027 6 and for economic injury is 17028 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Indiana, Kentucky. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Isabella Guzman, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2021-14771 Filed 7-12-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2462

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Cody John Cannon, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 6, 2007 Filed: December 20, 2007

___________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Cody John Cannon pleaded guilty to posse ssing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court 1 sentenced him to the statutory minimum of 120 months in prison, and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdr aw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the following reasons, we affirm.-2- The district court lacked authority to sentence Cannon below the 10-year statutory minimum. SeeUnited States v. Gregg , 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Chacon , 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003). Further, Cannon must pursue any ineffective-assistance claims in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Hughes , 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). Finally, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on cond ition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00107-CV

IN RE Stephen Patrick BLACK

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 15, 2019

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING DISMISSED

On April 10, 2019, the trial court granted relator’s “Motion to Terminate State Counsel for 

Offenders and Invoke the Faretta Right to Self-Representation.” Accordingly, on April 23, 2019, 

we ordered relator to file either a petition for writ of mandamus that fully complies with Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3 if he desired to pursue his request for mandamus relief or a 

motion to dismiss this original proceeding.

On May 3, 2019, relator filed a motion to dismiss stating, “the subject matter of this 

mandamus was resolved, wherein Relator now represents himself pro se in his court of 

commitment.” We grant the motion and dismiss this original proceeding.

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. CV-15-1805, styled In the Commitment of Stephen Patrick Black, pending 

in the 274th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable Gary L. Steel presiding.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Edwin ESKRIDGE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-5069.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 22, 2011.

Leena Alam, Kevin Charles Danielson, Catherine J. Depew, Allen J. Litchfield, Phil E. Pinnell, Esq., Office of the United States Attorney, Tuisa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*607Robert Eskridge, Texarkana, TX, pro se.

Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

HARRIS L. HARTZ, Circuit Judge.

A jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma found Defendant Robert Eskridge guilty on two charges: (1) conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, *see*21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1), and (2) engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, *see id.*§ 848 (Count 18). He was sentenced to 420 months’ imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. On remand after appeal, the conviction of conspiracy (Count 1) was vacated on the ground that it is a lesser-included offense of engaging in a continuous criminal enterprise (Count 13).

Defendant then filed in district court the motion at issue on this appeal, a Motion to Clarify and/or Correct Judgment and Sentence. He asserted that his sentence on Count 13 was 30 years, not 420 months. He relied on a statement in this court’s order denying his request for a certificate of appealability to enable him to appeal the denial by the district court of a motion he had filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *See United States v. Eskridge,*309 Fed.Appx. 282, 283 (10th Cir.2009). Our error was apparently based on a district-court docket entry describing Defendant’s sentence as 420 months on Count 1 and 30 years on Count 13.

The district court ruled that its sentence on Count 13 had been 420 months. That is the sentence reflected in the transcript of Defendant’s sentencing hearing and the district court’s original judgment. The court entered an amended judgment stating Defendant’s sentence as 420 months on Count 13.

Defendant appeals the district court’s ruling. But his ground is a new one. He now argues only that his base offense level was calculated incorrectly at his original sentencing. We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. *See United States v. Cook,*997 F.2d 1312, 1316 (10th Cir.1993) (grounds for relief not raised in district court are waived).

We AFFIRM the district court’s order.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:16-cr-00043-TLS-SLC

)

JUAN M. GONZALEZ )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, CHIEF 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 Judge

Susan Collins, on October 11, 2017, with the written consents of Defendant, counsel for

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 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 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 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 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 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 Defendant’s plea; and further,

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

adjudged guilty of the offense charged in Count 1 the two-count Indictment, and have sentence

imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Findings and Recommendation

be accepted and Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled before Chief 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 2017.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
#### Billy Ray O’NEAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-16569.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 8, 2011.

Billy Ray O’Neal, San Francisco, CA, pro se.

Andrew M. Gschwind, Esquire, San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Billy Ray O’Neal, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal under its local rules. *Ghazali v. Moran,*46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). We reverse and remand.

Under the circumstances set forth in O’Neal’s briefs and the district court record, dismissal of the action was an abuse of discretion.

O’Neal’s motion to file a supplemental opening brief, filed on March 8, 2011, is granted.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.