alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUART)

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

MATTHEW GRAY ALTMAN,

Respondent.

Docket Number 2023-001 4

CG Enforcement Activity Number 7629965

CONStrNT ORDER

Issued: June 7,2023

Bv: Honorable George J. Jordan. Administrative Latr Judge

Appearances:

ISRAEL NIEVES

USC(; DDO Myrtle Beach

For the Coast (luard

MATTHEW ALTMAN, Pra se

For the Respondent

vs.
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On Feburary 23.2023, the parties in this case submitted an Amended Motion for

Approval of Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ol

the case under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have caref'ully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

upon consideration of the record, it is hereby .RDERED, the settrement Agreement is

APPR,'ED in fu, and incorporated herein by reference. This consent order sha, constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

SO ORDERED.

Done and dated June 7. 2023.

Seaftle, Washington

George J. Jordan

Administrative Lau Judpe

Un ired Stares Coast Guard
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 52479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20369]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the NIH Clinical Center 
Research Hospital Board.
    The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and open to the 
public. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need 
special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the 
meeting should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the 
meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH video https://videocast.nih.gov/ and the CCRHB website https://ccrhb.od.nih.gov/meetings.html.

    Name of Committee: NIH Clinical Center Research Hospital Board.
    Date: October 15, 2021.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: CC CEO Update, Patient Safety and Clinical Quality 
Update, other business of the Board.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 1, 9000 Rockville 
Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Gretchen Wood, Staff Assistant, National 
Institutes of Health, Office of the Director, One Center Drive, 
Building 1, Room 126, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-4272, 
[email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, 
Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan 
Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 
93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, 
Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired 
Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, 
Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged 
Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 15, 2021.
Patricia B. Hansberger,
Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-20369 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

EDGAR TORRECAMPO SISON

Respondent

Docket Number 2023-01 15

Enforcement Activity No. 7650148

ORDERGRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL AND ORDER

This matter comes before me on the United States Coast Guard's (Coast Guard)

unopposed Motion for Withdrawal. Specifially, the Coast Guard asks that I dismiss this matter

without prejudice pursuant to 33 C.F.R. $ 20.31 1. In support ofthe motion, the Coast Guard

advises that Edgar Tonecampo Sison (Respondent) voluntarily surrendered his credentials

pursuant to 46 C.F.R. $ 5.203, which provides:

$ 5.203 Voluntary sunender to avoid hearing

(a) Any holder may surrender a credential or endorsement to the

Coast Guard in preference to appearing at a hearing.

(b) A holder voluntarily surrendering a credential or cndorsement

shall sign a written statement containing the stipulations that:

(1) The surrender is made voluntarily in preference to

appearing at a hearing;

(2) All rights to the credential or endorsement surrendered

a.re pennanently relinquished; and,

(3) Any rights with respect to a hearing are waived.

(c) A voluntary surrender of a credential or endorsement to an

investigating officer in prefcrence to appearing at a hearing is not

to be accepted by an investigating officer unless the investigating

officer is convinced that the holder fully realizes the effect of such

surrender.

vs.

DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Upon review of the file and the foregoing authority, I will GRANT the Coast Guard's

unopposed request DISMISS this matter WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Furthermore, the

hearing scheduled to on October 24, 2023, is CANCELLED. All outstanding

motions requesting te testimony are DENIED as MOOT, and my August 21,2023

order directing further briefing is SET ASIDE.

SOORDERED.

Done and dated Ang\st 23, 2023, at

Galveston, Texas

HON. TOMMY CANTRELL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

LINITED STATES COAST GUARD

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Amaro, Appellant.

— Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Burton Hecht, J.), both rendered on January 15, 1985, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Milonas and Smith, JJ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20351 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JERRY LEE HAMBRICK, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-H-94-287

- - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * We have jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court implicitly found excusable neglect, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(b), when it granted the motion for the appointment of appellate counsel. See United States v. Lister , 53 F.3d 66, 68 (5th Cir. 1995). Court-appointed counsel for Jerry Lee Hambrick has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).No. 95-20351 -2- We have independently reviewed counsel's brief and the record. We detect no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
#### In re PAYNE’S ESTATE.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14. 1894.)

Executors and Administrators—Inventory—Striking Out Items.

An item inserted in an inventory by mistake may be stricken out after the inventory is sworn to.

Appeal from surrogate’s court, Suffolk county.

Judicial accounting of Albert Payne and Shepard H. Payne, as executors of Silas W. Payne. Prom the decree settling the accounts, the executors appeal. Reversed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

Wilmot M. Smith, for appellants.

T. M. Griffing, for respondent.

*912PRATT, J.

The contestants herein seem to rely mainly upon the statement that the note in controversy was returned in the inventory as part' of the estate of the deceased, and wsas sworn to as such. But this is not true, as a matter of fact. On the other hand, it clearly appears that this item was stricken from the inventory before it was filed. It is said it was sworn to before it was amended by striking out this item, and hence it must be regarded as conclusively to be an asset of the estate. If, however, it was put in the inventory by mistake, it was proper to make the correction, and it was done. The weight of evidence seems clearly to show that the testator intended to give one-half of the property which he conveyed to him on Oxford street, reserving only the interest on one-half of the purchase money. This is proved by the written agreement, as well as the declarations of the testator. It is a just inference that the mortgage was satisfied, and the note in question given to carry out said agreement to pay the testator the interest during life. Such a theory is the only one consistent with all the facts. The testator, so far as appears, was a man of small means, comparatively; and if he had advanced $2,000, for which the note was given, it seems incredible that some one of the family should not be aware of the fact, and able to explain or prove the transaction. We think the fair inference is that the note, although absolute in form, was given simply as security for performance of the obligation to pay interest during the lifetime of the testator, and that the same was, in legal effect, canceled at his death. For this error the decree must be reversed, with costs.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 232 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a reduced rate 

of excise tax on beer produced domestically by certain qualifying producers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2015 

Mr. PAULSEN (for himself, Mr. NEAL, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. 

MCHENRY, and Mr. MEEHAN) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

a reduced rate of excise tax on beer produced domestically by certain qualifying producers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Brewer Rein5 vestment and Expanding Workforce Act’’ or as the ‘‘Small 

6 BREW Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 232 IH

1 SEC. 2. REDUCED RATE OF EXCISE TAX ON BEER PRO2 DUCED DOMESTICALLY BY CERTAIN QUALI3 FYING PRODUCERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 5051(a) 

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and 

7 (C) as subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively, and 

8 (2) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting 

9 the following new subparagraphs: 

10 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a brew11 er who produces not more than 6,000,000 bar12 rels of beer during the calendar year, the per 

13 barrel rate of tax imposed by this section shall 

14 be— 

15 ‘‘(i) $3.50 on the first 60,000 quali16 fied barrels of production, and 

17 ‘‘(ii) $16 on the first 1,940,000 quali18 fied barrels of production to which clause 

19 (i) does not apply. 

20 ‘‘(B) QUALIFIED BARRELS OF PRODUC21 TION.—For purposes of this paragraph, the 

22 term ‘qualified barrels of production’ means, 

23 with respect to any brewer for any calendar 

24 year, the number of barrels of beer which are 

25 removed in such year for consumption or sale 

26 and which have been brewed or produced by 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 232 IH

1 such brewer at qualified breweries in the United 

2 States.’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

4 (1) Subparagraph (C) of section 5051(a)(2) of 

5 such Code, as redesignated by this section, is 

6 amended— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘2,000,000 barrel quan8 tity’’ and inserting ‘‘6,000,000 barrel quantity’’, 

9 and 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘60,000 barrel quantity’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘60,000 and 1,940,000 barrel 

12 quantities’’. 

13 (2) Subparagraph (D) of such section, as so re14 designated, is amended by striking ‘‘2,000,000 bar15 rels’’ and inserting ‘‘6,000,000 barrels’’. 

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall apply to beer removed during calendar 

18 years beginning after the date of the enactment of this 

19 Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST COMMONWEALTH, INC. AS OF JUNE 30,
1998, AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS THEN ENDED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         10,234
<SECURITIES>                                    2,055         
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                      365
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               19,754 
<PP&E>                                          4,366
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 35,012
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           9,394
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            4
<OTHER-SE>                                     25,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   35,012
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               31,576
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  28,367 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   72
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 3,137
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,272
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,865
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,865
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.50
        

</TABLE>
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 Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. McNulty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ John E. McNulty                            
|John E. McNulty                                
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 10, 2006
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2393 

AN ACT 

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal 

country of origin labeling requirements with respect to 

beef, pork, and chicken, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2393 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Country of Origin La3 beling Amendments Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING RE5 QUIREMENTS FOR BEEF, PORK, AND CHICK6 EN. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 281 of the Agricultural 

8 Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (7); 

10 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), 

11 (5), (6), (8), and (9) as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), 

12 (4), (5), (6), and (7), respectively; and 

13 (3) in paragraph (1)(A) (as so redesignated)— 

14 (A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the 

15 following new clause: 

16 ‘‘(i) muscle cuts of lamb and veni17 son;’’; 

18 (B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the 

19 following new clause: 

20 ‘‘(ii) ground lamb and ground veni21 son;’’; 

22 (C) by striking clause (viii); and 

23 (D) by redesignating clauses (ix), (x), and 

24 (xi) as clauses (viii), (ix), and (x), respectively. 
3 

•HR 2393 EH

1 (b) NOTICE OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.—Section 282 

2 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 

3 1638a) is amended— 

4 (1) in subsection (a)(2)— 

5 (A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘BEEF, 

6 LAMB, PORK, CHICKEN,’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘LAMB,’’; 

8 (B) by striking ‘‘beef, lamb, pork, chick9 en,’’ and inserting ‘‘lamb,’’ each place it ap10 pears in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D); 

11 and 

12 (C) in subparagraph (E)— 

13 (i) in the heading, by striking 

14 ‘‘GROUND BEEF, PORK, LAMB, CHICKEN,’’ 

15 and inserting ‘‘GROUND LAMB,’’; and 

16 (ii) by striking ‘‘ground beef, ground 

17 pork, ground lamb, ground chicken,’’ each 

18 place it appears and inserting ‘‘ground 

19 lamb,’’; and 

20 (2) in subsection (f)(2)— 

21 (A) by striking subparagraphs (B) and 

22 (C); and 
4 

•HR 2393 EH

1 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) 

2 and (E) as subparagraphs (B) and (C), respec3 tively. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2393 

AN ACT 

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 

other purposes. with respect to beef, pork, and chicken, and for to repeal country of origin labeling requirements
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 528



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II No. CV-15-466
O.M. APPELLANT

V.

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR CHILD APPELLEES Opinion Delivered September 30, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, EIGHTH DIVISION [NO. 60JV2014-11] HONORABLE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR., JUDGE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge O.M. appeals a Pulaski County Circuit Court order terminating her parental rights to her son D.M. (d/o/b 01/26/2013). 1 O.M.’s attorney has filed a motion to be relieved from representation and a no-merit brief pursuant to Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004), and Rule 6-9(i) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. O.M. was sent a copy of her counsel’s motion and brief along with a letter informing her of her right to file pro se points for reversal, but the packet was returned “Attempted-Not Known.” O.M.’s attorney has no additional contact information for her.

1 William May is the putative father of D.M. His rights were also terminated by this order, but he did not file a notice of appeal from that determination; thus, he is not a party to this appeal.Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 528

Having carefully examined the record and the no-merit brief, we conclude that counsel has complied with the requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme Court for no-merit appeals in termination cases and that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, we affirm by memorandum opinion the termination of O.M.’s parental rights. See In re Memorandum Opinions , 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985); Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 5-2(e) (2014). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. GLADWIN , C.J., and H OOFMAN , J., agree. Leah Lanford , Arkansas Public Defender Commission, for appellant. No response.

2
IN THE COURT OF CRIM INAL AP P EALS OF TEXAS N O . W R - 8 8 , 1 5 1 - 0 1

E X P A R T E R O N A L D J O S E P H H O D G K I S S , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . W 2 9 6 - 8 0 6 4 0 - 2 0 1 2 - H C I N T H E 1 9 9 D I S T R I C T C O U R T T H F R O M C O L L I N C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of t h e T ex as Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex

. C ri m . App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of one count of sexual assault and five counts of indece ncy with a child. He was sentenc ed to twenty y ear s’ imprisonment on the sexual assault char g e and four o f t h e i ndece ncy counts and sentenc ed to ten y ear s’ imprisonment on one of the inde cenc y counts. He did not appe al his convictions. Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary and he was g iven ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v.W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patters o n , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The trial court rec ommended deny ing relief based, in part, on the repor ter’s rec ord from the habe as h ea ri ng . The repor ter’s rec ord from that hear ing was not provided to this Court. I n these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), the trial cour t is the appropria te forum f or finding s of fa ct. The trial court shall provide this Court with the repor ter’s rec ord of the habea s hear ing upon which it based its finding s of fac t. The trial court may also mak e an y other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for habea s corpus re lief, if nec essar y . This application will be held in abey ance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. I f any continuance s are g rante d, a copy of the order g ranting the continuance shall be sent to this Court. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hear ing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be returne d to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this orde r. Any extensions of time shall be obtained fr om this C ourt. Filed: Marc h 28, 2018 Do not publish
#### Charles C. O’Neil *v.*The United States.

*On the Proofs.*

*The facts in this case are substantially the same as in the 'preceding case of McKinney.*

*Messrs. Bartley <& Stanton*for the claimant.

*The Assistmt Attorney General*for the defendants.

Loring, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

In this case the facts found are like those found in the case of Henry McKinney, and for the same reasons as in that, judgment is to be entered for the defendants.