alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12796]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4579-FA-09]


Announcement of Funding Award--FY 2001 Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Control Tides Foundation

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary--Office of Healthy Homes and Lead 
Hazard Control.

ACTION: Announcement of funding award.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement 
notifies the public of a funding decision made by the Department to the 
Tides Foundation. This announcement contains the name and address of 
the awardee and the amount of the award.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Staci Gilliam, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, 
telephone (202) 755-1785, ext. 110. Hearing- or speech-impaired 
individuals may access this number by calling the Federal Information 
Relay Service TTY at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant 
for the Tides Foundation was issued pursuant to Pub. L. 102-550, Title 
X, Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.
    This notice announces the award of $581,612.00 to the Tides 
Foundation which will be used to provide financial support and 
technical assistance to support education and outreach efforts by 
parent groups and other community-based organizations to protect 
children from being lead poisoned.

    (The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this 
program is 14.900.)

    In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 
U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the name, address, and 
amount of the award as follows: Tides Foundation, P.O. Box 29907, San 
Francisco, CA 94129-0907. FY 2001: $581,612.00. Total Amount of Grant: 
$1,493,921.00.

    Dated: May 11, 2001.
David E. Jacobs,
Director, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control.
[FR Doc. 01-12796 Filed 5-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-01-M
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-1215

___________________________

 

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kermit Clay

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

Submitted: October 6, 2022

Filed: October 12, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

 

Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

 

PER CURIAM.

Kermit Clay received a 15-year supervised-release sentence after he violated 

the release conditions previously placed on him. He challenges the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence.
-2-

We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States 

v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (reviewing the reasonableness of a 

revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion and stating that a within-Guidelinesrange sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that the district 

court1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 

3583(c), (e)(3), (h), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error 

of judgment. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923–24 (8th Cir. 2006). 

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Missouri.
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.                  

###### General Services Administration

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the General Services Administration (GSA) has filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and made available to other government agencies and interested private parties, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the demolition of the Federal building currently housing the United States Mission to the United Nations (USUN) and the subsequent construction of a new facility on the same site.

The DEIS is on file at GSA offices in Manhattan. Copies of the DEIS Executive Summary or additional information may be obtained from: General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service—2PT, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1609, New York, New York, 10278, ATTN: Peter Sneed.

Written comments regarding the DEIS may be submitted until Friday July 13th, 2001 and should be addressed to General Services Administration in care of the above noted individual. A public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday June 13th, 2001, at the New York University Medical College Classroom A, 550 First Avenue (between 31st and 32nd Streets), New York, New York at 7 PM.

Dated: May 14, 2001.

Steve Ruggiero,

Acting Regional Administrator (2A).

[FR Doc. 01-13587  Filed 5-30-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-23-M
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Cameron Jarell Smith * From the 29 th District

Court of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. 1464 1

.

Vs. No. 11

- 12

- 00 13 3

- CR * May 23 , 2013

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson , J.)

This court has considered Appellant = s motion to dismiss his appeal and concludes

that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this court = s opinion,

the appeal is dismissed.
142 So. 75

#### XENOS v. VAFES.

6 Div. 75.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 26, 1932.

Clark Williams, of Birmingham, for appellant. '

John C. Arnold, of Birmingham, for appellee.

BROWN, J.

The appellee and the appellant each made application to the probate court for the issue of letters of guardianship of the estate of Louis Armenis, a non compos mentis, and resident of Jefferson county, the petition of each alleging that the petitioner was a resident of Jefferson county.

On the hearing of the two applications the court made an order appointing the appellee. Thereafter, the appellant made motion for a new trial on the ground, among others, that the appellee was an alien. The motion was overruled, and exception was duly reserved.

The bill of exceptions recites that: “The testimony tended to show and did show that A. L. Vafes was a resident of Jefferson County, Alabama, and had been for twenty- years ; that he was not a naturalized citizen of the United States, but was a citizen of the Country of Greece.”

It is here insisted that a guardian appointed by the probate court is an officer of the court, and under 'the provisions of section 2575 of the Code of 1923, appellee, not being a' qualified elector, was ineligible to accept the appointment.

While the position of guardian is sometimes referred to as an office, a guardian of the estate of a ward is in fact and law a mere trustee to care for and manage such estate, and the controlling consideration to govern the court in appointing a guardian is the interest of the ward, the safety of his property, and the character of the guardian for integrity and sound judgment. Lee v. Lee, 67 Ala. 406; Boylan v. Kohn et al., 172 Ala. 275, 55 So. 127; Hall et al. v. Hall et al., 43 Ala. 488, 94 Am. Dec. 703; McLean & Wife v. Hosea and Godbold, G’d’ns, 14 Ala. 194, 48 Am. Dec. 94.

There is nothing in our statute, nor in the eommon law as administered in this state, that denies to the probate court the power of selecting and appointing a person not a qualified elector if he possesses the requisite qualifications to hold and administer the trust. Boylan v. Kohn et al., supra; Watson v. White et al., 216 Ala. 396, 113 So. 260; Desribes v. Wilmer, 69 Ala. 25, 44 Am. Rep. 501.

We therefore hold that a guardian is not an officer within the purview of section 2575 of the Code. Wilson v. State, 171 Ala. 25, 54 So. 572.

This disposes of the only question presented by this appeal, and, the record being free from error, the judgment of the probate court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur. i
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Global Consumer Acquisition Corp.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 Quarterly 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.
    
    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andc.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 5.
    
    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 /s/ Scott LaPorta

Scott LaPortaPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 15, 2008
 16
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




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corporation
II (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 (the
“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I Yeon-su Kim, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and




2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Date:
      May 15, 2009
            /s/ Yeon-su KimName:
            Yeon-su
      KimTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darnell Norton, Appellant.

Submitted January 23, 2012;

decided February 9, 2012

Reported below, 87 AD3d 1310.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Timothy P. Donaher, Esq., Monroe County Public Defender, 10 N. Fitzhugh Street, Rochester, New York 14614 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
I N THE DISTRI CT COU RT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EX PIRES TO FILE M OTIO N FOR REHEARIN G AND DISPOSITIO N THEREOF IF FILED T ERRANCE T. JONES , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 800 LT Case No. 2019

- CF

- 000865

- A S TATE OF FLORIDA , A ppellee

.

_

_______________________________/ D ecision filed April 4, 2023 Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Sumter County , Mary Hatcher , Judge. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Joseph Chloupek, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

P ER CURIAM. A FFIRMED.

WALLIS , EDWARDS and HARRIS , JJ. , conc ur.
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Dotronix, Inc. of our report dated September 28, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Dotronix, Inc. as of and for the years ended June 30, 2006 and 2005, and to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-64993 and 333-31020) and SB-2 filed on June 2, 2004.



/s/  Lurie Besikof Lapidus &Company, LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota

September 28, 2006

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2451 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

575 Dexter Street in Central Falls, Rhode Island, as the ‘‘Elizabeth 

Buffum Chace Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2019 

Mr. CICILLINE (for himself and Mr. LANGEVIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 575 Dexter Street in Central Falls, Rhode 

Island, as the ‘‘Elizabeth Buffum Chace Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIZABETH BUFFUM CHACE POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 575 Dexter Street in Central 

6 Falls, Rhode Island, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Elizabeth Buffum Chace Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2451 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Elizabeth Buffum 

3 Chace Post Office’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ahmad BISHAWI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-2753.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 8, 2013.*

Decided Nov. 14, 2013.

Kit R. Morrissey, Office of the United States Attorney, Fairview Heights, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ahmad Bishawi, Youngstown, OH, pro se.

Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge.

This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

Order

Ahmad Bishawi is serving a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment for crack-cocaine offenses. After the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 took effect, and the Sentencing Commission reduced the Guideline ranges with retroactive effect, Bishawi asked the district court for a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied this motion because Bishawi’s sentence already is at the statutory minimum, so he cannot receive any benefit from the lower Guidelines.

Bishawi’s brief on appeal appears to reflect a belief that all defendants sentenced before the 2010 Act took effect can be resentenced afterward — because only a new sentence under the Act’s revised terms would reduce the statutory minimum sentence. But the Supreme Court held in *Dorsey v. United States,*— U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2321, 183 L.Ed.2d 250 (2012), that the 2010 Act applies only to persons sentenced on or after August 3, 2010. Bishawi was sentenced in 1999. A motion under § 3582(c)(2) differs from re-sentencing. See *Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Nor does it entitle a defendant to reopen issues, such as the quantity of drugs involved, resolved at the original sentencing. See, e.g., *United States v. Poole,*550 F.3d 676 (7th Cir.2008). We have therefore held that persons who received a statutory-minimum sentence before August 3, 2010, cannot receive any benefit from the 2010 Act. *United States v. Foster,*706 F.3d 887 (7th Cir.2013).

*712
      *Foster*and *Poole*control this appeal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Bernhard Christian Helgason, Appellant, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent. Bernhard Christian Helgason, Appellant, v State of New York (Division of Housing and Community Renewal), Respondent.

Submitted December 28, 2009;

decided February 23, 2010

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (CPLR 5601). Motion for leave to appeal denied.
# C_2019187EN.01002401.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Tallinna Vesi AS v Keskkonnaamet

(Case C-60/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Directive 2008/98/EC - Re-use and recovery of waste - Specific end-of-waste criteria for sewage sludge which has undergone recovery treatment - No defined criteria at European Union or national level)

(2019/C 187/27)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tallinna Vesi AS

Defendant: Keskkonnaamet

intervener: Keskkonnaministeerium

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives must be interpreted as meaning that:

| — | it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where criteria have not been set at European Union level for determining end-of-waste status as regards a specific type of waste, such end status depends on the existence of criteria laid down in a generally applicable national legal act concerning that type of waste, and |
| --- | --- |

—

it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where criteria have not been set at European Union level for determining end-of-waste status as regards a specific type of waste, such end status depends on the existence of criteria laid down in a generally applicable national legal act concerning that type of waste, and

| — | it does not allow a waste holder, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to demand the recognition of end of waste status by the competent authority of the Member State or by a court of that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

—

it does not allow a waste holder, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to demand the recognition of end of waste status by the competent authority of the Member State or by a court of that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

---
142 So. 440

#### DECATUR FINANCE CO. v. O. L. NEWSOM.

8 Div. 418.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 2, 1932.

Seybourn H. Lynne, of Decatur, for petitioner.

Melvin Hutson, of Decatur, opposed.

BOULDIN, X

Petition of O. L. Newsom for certiorari to Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Decatur Finance Co. v. Newsom, 142 So. 438.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. X, and GARDNER and FOSTER, JJ., concur.