alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 148 (Thursday, August 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 42827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16864]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and its 
continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on August 11, 2021.

PLACE: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC. (This meeting will be a 
virtual meeting).

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 
30109.
    Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules 
and practices.
    Investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes and 
production would disclose investigative techniques.
    Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to 
have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed 
Commission action.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
* * * * *

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Laura E. Sinram,
Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-16864 Filed 8-3-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
#### D. DUSTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain TYSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-16158.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 19, 2011.

D. Dustin, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

D. Dustin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Pagtalunan v. Galaza,*291 F.3d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

*156The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Dustin’s action for failure to comply with a court order because Dustin failed to file an amended complaint after the court had granted six extensions. *See id.*at 642^43 (discussing factors that district courts must consider before dismissing for failure to comply with a court order). Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to provide Dustin with further copies of his original complaint after twice providing him copies of his original complaint.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dustin’s recusal motion because the magistrate judge’s prior rulings in this and other cases did not constitute grounds for recusal. *See Liteky v. United States,*510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (“[Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”); *Kulas v. Flores,*255 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir.2001) (setting forth standard of review).

We do not consider matters not raised in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

Dustin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Burnett, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered July 5, 1983, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

As defendant never sought a bill of particulars, he cannot now complain about the alleged inaccuracy of the information in the bill of particulars which was furnished in response to his codefendant’s request *(see, People v Foster,*64 NY2d 1144, *cert denied*— US —, 106 S Ct 166). In any event, defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of the inaccuracy *(see, People v Petterson,*103 AD2d 811; *People v Ames,*115 AD2d 543).

We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find that they are unpreserved or without merit *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Santiago,*52 NY2d 865). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.2


                              ACCOUNTANT'S CONSENT




The Board of Directors
InfraCorps Inc.:



           We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 333-12167 and No. 333-12165) on Form S-8 of InfraCorps Inc.,
(formerly ETS International, Inc.) of our report dated May 8, 1998, relating to
the consolidated balance sheet of InfraCorps Inc., (formerly ETS International,
Inc.) and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for the
ten-month period ended March 31, 1998 and year ended May 31, 1997, which report
is incorporated by reference in the March 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of
InfraCorps Inc. Our report dated May 8, 1998, contains an explanatory paragraph
that states that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and
has a net capital deficiency, which raise substantial doubt about its ability to
continue as a going concern. The aforementioned consolidated financial
statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of
that uncertainty.


                                                         KPMG LLP

Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1999
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1443 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1443

       To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 7, 1997

  Mr. Helms  introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new item:

      

``    9902.32.22     6-Bromo-                                                                                   
                      2,4,Dinitroanili                                                                          
                      ne (CAS No. 1817-                                                                         
                      73-8) (provided                                                                           
                      for in                                                                                    
                      subheading                                                                                
                      2921.42.90.00)..  Free              No change        No change        On or before 12/    
                                                                                             31/2000            
                                                                                                              ''

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# t

..



# tl.: ,f NO. CR1401047 STATE OF TEXAS

\ 

## "· S.\\1 BLSBY § IN THE COUNTY COURT**~** 

### s .\T LAW Nt\lBER l**~** § 

### s 

### s HLNT COl r\TY, TEXAS
NOTICE OF APPL\L !0 THE HO'\ORAHLE .H D<;E OF SAID COrRT: \•J\\ cume::, Sam Busb.:.**Dd~ndant** in the ahO\ c**~tykd** and numherL'd cause. and giws


## My P\eq 

### Decf\ \.vqS 

## Not Fo**llc:.o"'-~ R~**  

### Tt1e 

## Dfl 

## D· &. .l.rJtetL. 

### fi**~** 

### . .1**~As** 

### Nor**P\~o-ve.e** 

### To**Tc-t~-** 

### I+ [3cld: Gnc.e \tvolt-t**~e\et1~ ~**  (Vc:A-**~** n-1'("£ 

## I-t _LS 01) 

## T}ie_**~eeottd.·** S:\\1 Bl Sl3'r. PR< > Sl. 31 15 On..:al**~lfl.'.:t** (]rl·..:m ilk. ! ..:xas 7.5-Wl Phune 

### Cfo3- 

### id.l7- 

# ere It

CERTIFICATE OF SUH ICt. Jhis i:-. lu L'l.:l'ti i\ t!ut un June 

## J 

# J , 20 l:'.**~:** true· and corTcCl cop: uf !he abO\ c <inO

' ,. <.h
..'i1 \ cr\ 

# ,. l



# ..



# '

!

### •• 

# tNOTICE OF APPEAL-CRIMINAL FORM NO. CR1401047 THE STATE OF TEXAS 

## vs. SAM BUSBY

DATE NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED: JUNE 24,2015 OFFENSE: HARASSMENT IN THE HUNT COUNTY COURT OF LAW #1 HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS

GUlLTY OR NOLO PLEA: NO PLEA BARGAIN: NO DATE OF SENTENCE (OR APPEALABLE ORDER): MAY 20, 2015 SENTENCE IMPOSED: MAY 20, 2015 DATE OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, IF FILED: NAME OF TRIAL COURT JUDGE: TIMOTHY S. LINDEN NAME OF COURT REPORTER: CHER PERRY NAME OF DEFENSE ATTORNEY ON APPEAL: ADDRESS: 3115 O'NEAL STREET CITY, STATE, ZIP: GREENVILLE, TX. 75401 DEFENSE ATTORNEY ON APPEAL: _APPOINTED RETAINED 

### X PRO SE STATE ATTORNEY ON APPEAL: WILEY HOLOPETER CUSTODY STATUS: IN CUSTODY APPEAL BOND SET AT: N/ A
Exhibit 23.1 

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-109755, 333-103595, 333-80065, 333-06563, 333-11451, 333-35651,333-28929, 333-28927, 333-71913, 333-80963, and 333-11583) of our reports dated March 7, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Secure Computing Corporation, Secure Computing Corporation management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Secure Computing Corporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year endedDecember 31, 2004, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

December 1, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.2



                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Steven D. Shackelford, the Chief Financial Officer of Trustreet
Properties,  Inc. (the "Company"), has executed this certification in connection
with the filing with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  of the Company's
Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q  for the  quarter  ended  June  30,  2005  (the
"Report"). The undersigned hereby certifies that:

(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 this 9th day of August 2005.



                                         /s/ Steven D. Shackelford
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Steven D. Shackelford
                                         Chief Financial Officer


                                         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.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Soil Drainage Research: Columbus, OH
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About usSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Columbus, Ohio Soil Drainage Research People & Locations







Tyler  Wood
                        Soil Drainage Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Laboratory Technical
                        Phone: (614) 421-8349
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### In the Matter of Brian S. Fontaine, Appellant, v Mary K. Fontaine, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 834]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Gina M. Glover, R.), entered March 28, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia, granted supervised visitation to petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is *1431unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: On appeal from an order directing, inter alia, that petitioner father’s visitation with the parties’ children shall continue to be supervised, the father contends that the Court Attorney Referee erred “in failing to set forth those facts essential to [her] decision” *(Matter of Bradbury v Monaghan,*77 AD3d 1424, 1424 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]). We agree. We note at the outset that, according to the order of the Court Attorney Referee, the parties stipulated that the Court Attorney Referee (hereafter, court) would hear and determine the petition. “Effective appellate review . . . requires[, however], that appropriate factual findings be made by the [hearing] court — the court best able to measure the credibility of the witnesses” *(Matter of Jose L. I.,*46 NY2d 1024, 1026 [1979]). “Inasmuch as ‘the record is not sufficient to enable this Court to make the requisite findings of fact,’ ” we reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for a new hearing on the petition *(Bradbury,*77 AD3d at 1425), including a new in camera hearing with the children *(see Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln,*24 NY2d 270 [1969]).

In light of our determination, we must address only one of the father’s remaining contentions, i.e., that the court improperly allowed the Attorney for the Children to approve visitation supervisors. We reject that contention *(see Matter of Kruty v Manell,*248 AD2d 809, 811 [1998]; see *also Matter of Vieira v Huff,*83 AD3d 1520, 1521 [2011]). In doing so, we note that the court did not improperly delegate the determination of an issue involving the best interests of the children, “i.e., whether [unsupervised] visitation should resume and, if so, when” *(Matter of Hameed v Alatawaneh,*19 AD3d 1135, 1136 [2005]; *cf. Matter of Battista v Battista,*294 AD2d 941 [2002]; *Wills v Wills,*283 AD2d 1023, 1024 [2001]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Bindley and Martoche, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Hernandez, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 885] —

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated October 21, 2008 *(People v Hernandez,*55 AD3d 849 [2008]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 11, 2006.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Mastro, A.P.J., Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Armstrong, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 917]

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M. Donalty, J.), rendered December 1, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree (Penal Law § 221.20). We reject defendant’s contention that he was improperly permitted to proceed pro se. The record establishes that defendant made a “knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel” *(People v Arroyo,*98 NY2d 101, 103 [2002]). The record further establishes that defendant adhered to that waiver throughout the proceedings, despite the “ ‘searching inquiries]’ ” by County Court “to make him ‘aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation’ ” and the fact that the court impressed upon him the value of trained trial counsel knowledgeable about criminal law and procedure *(People v Providence,*2 NY3d 579, 582 [2004]; *see People v Crampe,*17 NY3d 469, 481-482 [2011]). The court *properly*refused to permit standby counsel, while defendant was proceeding pro se, to conduct jury selection on defendant’s behalf *(see People v Brown,*6 AD3d 1125, 1126 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 657 [2004]). “A criminal defendant has no Federal or State constitutional right to hybrid representation . . . While the Sixth Amendment and the State Constitution afford a defendant the right to counsel or to self-representation, they do not guarantee a right to both . . .[, and] a defendant who elects to exercise the right to self-representation is not guaranteed the assistance of standby counsel during trial” *(People v Rodriguez,*95 NY2d 497, 501 [2000]).

By failing to move to dismiss the indictment within the five-day statutory period on the ground that he was denied his right to testify before the grand jury *(see*CPL 190.50 [5] [c]; *People v Ray,*27 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 761 [2006]), defendant thus waived his right to testify before the grand jury and his contention that the indictment should have been *1553dismissed based on the denial of his right to testify before the grand jury lacks merit *(see Ray,*27 AD3d at 1057). Finally, the conclusory allegations made by defendant in support of his suppression motion were not sufficient to warrant a hearing, and the court properly summarily decided the motion *(see*CPL 710.60 [3] [b]; *People v Haskins,*86 AD3d 794, 795-796 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 903 [2011]; *see also People v Jeffreys,*284 AD2d 550 [2001], *lv denied*99 NY2d 536 [2002]; *People v Gadsden,*273 AD2d 701, 701-702 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 934 [2000]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey and Sconiers, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge and belief: 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Austin L. Roberts, III                     
|Austin L. Roberts, III, Chief Executive Officer
|                                               
|/s/ Deborah M. Evans                           
|Deborah M. Evans, Treasurer                    

May 6, 2010

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 will be retained by Bay Banks
of Virginia, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission and its staff upon request.



27
ex10-46.htm


    Exhibit
10.46

    


    WAIVER

    


    In
consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s
participation in the United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital
Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States
or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required
to comply with the regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury as
published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008.

    


    I
acknowledge that this regulation may require modification of the compensation,
bonus, incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements
(including so-called “golden parachute” agreements) that I have with my employer
or in which I participate as they relate to the period the United States holds
any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital
Purchase Program.

    


    This
waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any
state related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation,
including without limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I
would otherwise receive, any challenge to the process by which this regulation
was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of these
regulations on my employment relationship.