alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
 SUMMARY: Between October 1, 1999, and March 31, 2000, Region 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Service issued five permits for the incidental take of threatened and endangered species, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. Of the five permits issued, three are for the golden-cheeked warbler (GCW) and two are for the Houston toad (HT), and all are issued to Permittees in the greater Austin, Texas area. Copies of the five permits and associated decision documents are available upon request. In addition, between October 1, 1999 and March 31, 2000, one permit had a minor administrative amendment.
 ADDRESSES: If you would like copies of any of the above documents, please contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie Dierauf, Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Coordinator, at the above address, 505-248-6651. Further details of these permits may also be viewed on the Internet at 
                        *http://ecos.fws.gov.*


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 9 of the Act and Federal Regulation prohibits the “take” of wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered species. Under the Act, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed wildlife, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. The Service may, under limited circumstances, issue permits to authorize incidental take, 
                    *i.e.*
                     that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing permits for endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.22. **Five Incidental Take Permits Issued**
Permittee
Permit No.
Date of IssuanceDavid C. Anderson (TX), GCW
TE-019709-0
02/04/00Tamera M. Smith (TX), HT
TE-020079-0
02/22/00Shelby D. Gregory (TX), HT
TE-020080-0
02/22/00Brent Mayberry (TX), GCW
TE-012963-0
12/15/99Anthony J. Franzetti (TX), GCW
TE-016491-0
01/20/00
 **One Administrative Amendment**
Permittee
Permit No.
Date of amendmentSpicewood at Bull Creek Amendment #4
PRT-783564
03/02/00
 Geoffrey L. Haskett, Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico.


[FR Doc. 00-9958 Filed 4-20-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-55-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1849

STARSHA M. SEWELL, A Natural Person and Resident of Maryland On Behalf 

of Herself and Her African American Son’s,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, A Natural Person, acting as a Federal Judge In the 

United States of America,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. 

Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-03256-JKB)

Submitted: November 27, 2017 Decided: December 6, 2017

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Starsha Sewell appeals the district court’s order returning various documents to 

Sewell because the case was closed. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Sewell v. Chasanow, No. 1:16-cv-03256-JKB (D. 

Md. July 6, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Curtis M. Burdick, Appellant.

Harvey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered March 7, 1983, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of forgery in the second degree.

Defendant contends that his plea of guilty was involuntary and thus invalid. Having failed to either move to withdraw his plea before sentencing or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant has not preserved this issue for appellate review *(see, People v Claudio,*64 NY2d 858; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636). Further, an examination of the plea colloquy does not reveal that a review in the interest of justice is in order.

Defendant also asserts that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to request a psychiatric inquiry. We cannot agree. Although the presentence report indicated that defendant had prior mental problems, the evidence did not establish a likelihood that defendant’s counsel could have successfully had defendant declared an incapacitated person. Further, the record reveals that defendant’s counsel made appropriate motions and requests in an attempt to provide defendant with an effective defense and that he was ultimately able to secure a favorable plea for defendant.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
        23.3**
 
 **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 We
        hereby
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
        Form
        S-8 (No. 333-107519) of DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. of our report dated June
        30,
        2004 relating to the consolidated financial statements of DiCon Fiberoptics,
        Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2004 and the financial statement schedule
        which appears in this Form 10-KSB.
 
 
 /s/
        PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 
 **PricewaterhouseCoopers
        LLP**
 San
        Francisco, California
 June
        28,
        2005
386 P.2d 793

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Felix Genaro HERNANDEZ, Appellant.

No. 1352.

Supreme Court of Arizona. En Bane.

Nov. 20, 1963.

Dale Head, Phoenix, for appellant.

Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., Charles N. Ronan, County Atty., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of first degree burglary and grand theft. He was sentenced to from 4 to '5 years' on the first' count and from 5 to 10 years on the second count. He was represented by counsel at the trial. He filed his notice of appeal in *68propria persona and thereafter counsel was appointed by the trial court pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-161 to assist him in his appeal. Counsel stated to this court that he has read the record and the transcript and could find no grounds on which an appeal could be based. This court ordered the appeal be submitted on the record and transcript of testimony for examination for fundamental error.

We have examined the record and transcript of testimony and find no error. The State’s case was based on the circumstantial evidence that the defendant was found in the possession of stolen property within hours of the time the theft was discovered. He had no satisfactory explanation for having the property in his possession. The premises from which the property was taken had been broken into during the night time. There was other competent evidence consisting of the fact that a- crowbar, tire iron, and screwdriver were found in appellant’s car. He had chemicals on his shoes consistent with chemicals spilled on the floor of the burglarized premises. He made an admission against interest to the police who testified he had offered to “cop out” if he was given probation. The trial court properly instructed the jury on the effect of circumstantial evidence and on the weight to be given the possession of recently stolen property. The record contains sufficient evidence to justify the jury in returning a verdict of guilty and no testimony which would have improperly prejudiced the jury was brought out at the trial.

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Nortel Networks Limited (the Company) of our report dated
February 25, 2003, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company
for the year ended December 31, 2002:



| |  |  | Registration Statement on
Form S-8 and all Post-Effective Amendments thereto
(Nortel Networks U.S. Deferred Compensation Plan)
(333-11558)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |  |  | Registration Statement on
Form S-3 and all Post-Effective Amendments thereto
(Common Shares, Preferred Shares, Debt Securities, Guarantees,
Warrants to Purchase Equity Securities, Warrants to Purchase Debt Securities,
Share Purchase Contracts, Share Purchase or Equity Units of Nortel Networks Corporation and
Guaranteed Debt Securities of Nortel Networks Limited)
(333-88164)
|
| |  |  | Registration Statement on
Form S-3 and all Post-Effective Amendments thereto
(4.25% Convertible Senior Notes Due 2008)
(333-72948)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



/s/ Nicholas L.E. ROLT



Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Nicholas L.E. ROLT



Neuilly, France
March 10, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 15-17

IN RE: TIMELINESS OF NOTICES OF APPEAL 

Before DAVIS, Chief Judge, and SCHOELEN, PIETSCH, BARTLEY, GREENBERG, 

ALLEN, MEREDITH, and TOTH, Judges.

O R D E R

To obtain review of an adverse Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision, an appellant 

must file a Notice of Appeal (NOA) with the Court within 120 days after the date on which 

notice of the Board decision is mailed. 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a); U.S. VET. APP. R. 4(a). The Supreme 

Court of the United States has determined that this 120-day period is not jurisdictional. 

Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011).

The Court has had a practice of sua sponte identifying NOAs that appear to have been 

filed outside the 120-day appeal period. Thereafter, the Court would issue an order directing the 

appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. The Court has determined, 

effective Wednesday, December 6, 2017, that it will discontinue its practice of sua sponte raising 

the untimeliness of any NOA filed. Accordingly, all parties are hereby notified that for all 

appeals filed beginning on December 6, 2017, the Court will act on matters of timeliness of an 

appeal only if the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) raises the issue in a motion to 

dismiss.

The Court is working to revise its Rules of Practice and Procedure to incorporate this 

change and to identify the time period during which a motion for dismissal based on timeliness 

will be permitted. Any proposed Rule will be made available for public comment before being 

adopted. As an interim measure, effective immediately, if the Secretary intends to raise the issue 

of an untimely filed NOA, the Secretary must file a motion to dismiss not later than 45 days after 

the Secretary files the Board decision pursuant to Rule 4(c).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 20, 2017 PER CURIAM.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A (the "Report") of
Intraop Medical Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, David Shamy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.

                  By:  /S/ DAVID SHAMY
                  ------------------------------------------------------------
                  David Shamy
                  Chief Executive Officer/ President / Chief Financial Officer


September 10, 2004
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.

                                       22
Order entered June 25 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 01019 - CV FEYSAL AYATI - GHAFFARI AND IRANA H AGNAZARI , Appellants V. HAZAWIPERI JACKIE GUMBODETE AND JOSE A NAYA , Appellees

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429 - 04867 - 2012



### ORDER Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Schenck Th is appeal was submitted in this Court on June 17, 2015. On May 14, 2015, appellants filed in this Court a “ Notice to the Fifth Judicial District Court of Dallas, Texas of Removal to Federal Court.” Appellants stated in part in that notice that they have “filed removal papers” in the United States District Court f or the Eastern District of Texas regarding this case
. Attached to appellants’ May 14, 2015 notice in this Court is a document with a federal court caption , titled “Notice of Removal of Entire Civil Action No. 429

- 04867

- 2012 & 429

- 04867

- 2012A .” However, that attach ed document is not file

- stamped by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
. See Crear v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n , No. 05

- 13

- 01683

- CV, 2015 WL 1137886, at *1

– 2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2015, no pet.) (no removal sh own where appellant’s notice to state court did not have “filed copy of the removal notice itself” attached).– 2

–

Appellants were requested by letter from this Court to file in this Court no later than June 24, 2015, a filed

- stamped copy of the notice of remo val purportedly filed by them in federal court. They have not done so. We ORDER appellants to file in this Court no later than July 2, 2015 , a file - stamped copy of the document titled “Notice of Removal of Entire Civil Action No. 429

- 04867

- 2012 & 429

- 04867

- 2012A” filed by them in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, i.e. , a copy of the “Notice of Removal of Entire Civil Action No. 429

- 04867

- 2012 & 429

- 04867

- 2012A” bear ing a file - stamp of the United States District Cou rt for the Eastern District of Texas. U ntil such time that this Court receives a copy of th at document file

- stamped by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, this case will proceed in this Court. See id
. /s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE
Exhibit 32

                 CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report of Advanced Technologies Group, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(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.


Dated: February 12, 2008                    By: /s/ Abel Raskas
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Abel Raskas
                                               President


Dated: February 12, 2008                    By: /s/ Alex Stelmak
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Alex Stelmak
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1



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



I, Gary Musselman,  the Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial  Officer of
Pacel  Corp.  (the  "Company"),   certify,   pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  that to the best of my
knowledge:

     1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the Company for the period ended
June 30, 2004 (the  "Report)  fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
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: August 19, 2004



/s/ Gary Musselman
--------------------------------
Gary Musselman, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
**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**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));                and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                     |                                     |                                  |
|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                     |                                          |
| Date: April                12, 2007 |                                     | /s/ ROBERT              T. FABER |
|                                     | Robert                T. Faber           |
|                                     | *Chief                Financial Officer* |

----
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 AboveNet, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William G.
LaPerch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of the Company.




Date:  February 6,
      2009
              By:
              /s/ William G. LaPerchWilliam
      G. LaPerch
                Chief
      Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Each of the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Emageon Inc.
hereby individually certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Emageon Inc. In witness whereof, each of the undersigned has executed and delivered this Certification on
this 31st day of March, 2005. /s/ Charles A. Jett, Jr.
    
    
    
    /s/ W. Randall PittmanCharles A. Jett, Jr.
    
    
    
    W. Randall PittmanChief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Executive Officer)
    
    
    
    (Principal Financial Officer)
Opinion issued August 30, 2012.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-11-00845-CR

———————————

LARRY F. ERNESTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 98-CCR-077087

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Larry F. Erneston, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The 

motion complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.2(a). We have not issued a decision in the appeal.
2

Accordingly, we order the appeal reinstated and we dismiss the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

We direct the Clerk to issue the mandate within 10 days of the date of this 

opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 13-19

IN RE: JUDICIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

O R D E R

In Miscellaneous Order 04-17 in Re: Judicial Advisory Committee, it was ordered sua 

sponte, that the court assemble a Judicial Advisory Committee, composed of eleven people who 

represent a cross section of individuals and entities sharing a common interest in improving the 

Court's operations and enhancing the practice of veterans law.

It is ORDERED that Glenn R. Bergmann, Esq., is appointed to serve as a member of the 

Judicial Advisory Committee, vice Ronald L. Smith, Esq., who has resigned his position on the 

Committee. 

 

DATED: October 16, 2019 FOR THE COURT:

 /s/Gregory O. Block

 GREGORY O. BLOCK

 Clerk of the Court