alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register: May 22, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 28370]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22my98-68]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 8, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-13872 Filed 5-20-98; 12:53 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
No. 545.

#### Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue *v.*Stokes.

December 9, 1935.

*Solicitor General Reed*for petitioner.

*Mr. Charles H. Knight*for respondent.

*Per Curiam:*

The petition for writ of certiorari in this case is granted. Decree reversed. *Douglas*v. *Willcuts, ante,*p. 1; and *Helvering*v. *Schweitzer*and *Helvering*v. *Blumenthal,*the two cases next following.
Exhibit (n)(2)

**SCHEDULE I, DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2009, TO MULTIPLE CLASS OF SHARES PLAN FOR**

**FIDELITY FUNDS WITH RETAIL, RETIREMENT AND/OR ADVISOR CLASSES, DATED MARCH 18, 2009**

**FIDELITY ADVISOR SERIES I**
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sugentino PERCEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-20752

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 22, 2010.

*418James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Sugentino Percel, Loretto, PA, pro se.

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sugentino Percel, federal prisoner # 39433-179, was convicted of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute and aiding and abetting the possession with the intent to distribute, five kilograms or more of cocaine. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. *United States v. Percel,*553 F.3d 903, 906 (5th Cir.2008), *cert. denied, Vasquez v. United States,*— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2065, 173 L.Ed.2d 1143 (2009). He now appeals the district court’s denial as untimely of his post-appeal motion for a new trial. He alleged that his motion was based on newly discovered evidence consisting of a statement from a non-testifying codefendant, Bonifacio Hernandez, indicating that Percel did not participate in the offenses of which he was convicted and had no knowledge of the cocaine.

Even if this court assumes that the motion was based on newly discovered evidence and was timely filed, Percel cannot show that he is entitled to a new trial. A defendant moving for a new trial must establish that: (1) the evidence is newly discovered and was unknown to him at the time of trial; (2) the defendant’s failure to discover the evidence was not due to a lack of diligence; (3) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (4) the evidence would probably produce acquittal at a new trial. *United States v. Freeman,*77 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir.1996); *United States v. Simmons,*714 F.2d 29, 31 (5th Cir.1983). Percel has not shown that his failure to discover Hernandez’s potential favorable testimony was not due to his own lack of diligence. Nor has he shown, in light of the other evidence against him, *419that inclusion of Hernandez’s proffered testimony would probably result in his acquittal at a new trial. Two of Percel’s co-defendants offered detailed testimony at trial impheating him in the offense. That testimony was corroborated to a large extent by testimony from DEA agents who conducted surveillance of the defendants on the day of their arrest; by video tapes made during that surveillance; and by items found during searches of the residences involved.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. *See Freeman,*77 F.3d at 817. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
#### Bryan Mark OLSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. AK State Trooper G. Ken ZABALA, individual; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 09-35925.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 10, 2012.

Bryan Mark Olson, Kenai, AK, pro se.

Michael Hotchkin, Attorney General’s Office, Anchorage, AK, Frank S. Koziol, Esquire, Law Office of Frank S. Koziol, Anchorage, AK, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Bryan Mark Olson appeals pro se from • the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant Zabala violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force when arresting him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Zabala on the basis of qualified immunity because any potential constitutional violation resulting from Zabala’s use of a taser against Olson, where Olson was actively resisting arrest and threatening officers, was not clearly established when the incident occurred in 2005. *See Mattos v. Agarano,*661 F.3d 433, 446-48, 452 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc) (officers entitled to qualified immunity because the law with respect to an officer’s use of a taser against an actively resisting suspect was not clearly established in 2006).

Olson’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.
# C_2010252EN.01000501.xml

| 18.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/5

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 252/02

| Date of adoption of the decision | 20.5.2010 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 256/09 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Ethias SA |
| Legal basis | — |
| Type of measure | Individual aid |
| Objective | Aid to remedy serious disturbances in the economy |
| Form of aid | Other forms of equity intervention |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 1 500 million |
| Intensity | 100 % |
| Duration (period) | 20.4.2009-31.12.2013 |
| Economic sectors | Financial intermediation |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Belgian Federal State, Flemish region and Walloon region |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

20.5.2010

Reference number of State Aid

N 256/09

Member State

Belgium

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Ethias SA

Legal basis

—

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

Aid to remedy serious disturbances in the economy

Form of aid

Other forms of equity intervention

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 1 500 million

Intensity

100 %

Duration (period)

20.4.2009-31.12.2013

Economic sectors

Financial intermediation

Name and address of the granting authority

Belgian Federal State, Flemish region and Walloon region

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE

#### Ollie G. Stone v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al.

January 23, 1989

Case No. 87-11

By Judge James F. Ingram

Ollie G. Stone, an employee of Virginia Maintenance Company, was injured on February 8, 1985, when he was struck by a door opened by a UPS employee while Stone was waxing the floor at the UPS facility in Danville, Virginia. By agreement dated May 1, 1984, Virginia Maintenance Company was to furnish cleaning services for the UPS facility in Danville. As a result of this injury, Stone received Workers’ Compensation benefits from his employer, Virginia Maintenance Company. Stone then brought this suit against UPS seeking to recover under the theory of common law negligence by UPS and their employee for the injuries he sustained. UPS filed a special plea alleging that the plaintiff’s claim against it should be barred by virtue of the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy under the Worker’s Compensation Act.

Evidence was heard on this issue and revealed that the plaintiff, at the time of the injury, was working a full five-day week at the UPS facility in Danville performing janitorial work. While UPS did not have the right to hire or fire him, under the terms of the aforesaid agreement dated May 1, 1984, UPS did supervise his day-to-day activities in cleaning the facility, and plaintiff was instructed by UPS employees of his daily duties. Because UPS became dissatisfied with plaintiff’s work, they notified Virginia Maintenance company that they wanted the plaintiff terminated from his duties at the UPS facility and, about six months after he began working there, was in fact replaced by another employee of Virginia Maintenance Company.

*497In order for the plaintiff to maintain this action, he must show that he was not engaged in work that was a part of UPS’s trade, business or occupation. This principle is set forth in the case of *Henderson v. Central Telephone Co.,*233 Va. 377 (1987). The test to be applied is whether one’s duties are an indispensable activity normally carried on through employees, rather than individual contractors. In this case, the labor which Stone performed for United Parcel Service, Inc., was steady, normal and regular work consisting of maintenance and general cleaning work, which was an essential part of the functioning or the business and the services of United Parcel Service, Inc.

It is the conclusion of this Court that United Parcel Service, Inc., is the statutory employer of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff, having sought Workers’ Compensation Benefits, has elected his sole and exclusive remedy. This bars his action in tort against defendant, United Parcel Service, Inc., here. For these reasons, the special plea of the defendant is sustained, and an Order to that effect may be prepared.
```

[Federal Register: July 21, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 139)]
[Notices]
[Page 38981-38982]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21jy97-53]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, August 29, 1997.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 9th fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.


[[Page 38982]]


MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-19146 Filed 7-16-97; 4:09 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO    INDEX ========**

----
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed July 24, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0106

Lower Tribunal No. F20-14475B

________________

Kendric Demarcus McNeill,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ramiro C. 

Areces, Judge.

Eugene F. Zenobi, Regional Counsel, and Kristen Kawass, Assistant 

Regional Counsel, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and SCALES, and MILLER, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 843.02, Fla. Stat. (2020) (“Whoever shall resist, 

obstruct, or oppose any officer . . . in the execution of legal process or in the 

lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the 

person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree 

. . . .”); see also E.A.B. v. State, 851 So. 2d 308, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) 

(“The element of lawful execution of a legal duty is satisfied if an officer has 

either a founded suspicion to stop the person or probable cause to make a 

warrantless arrest.”); Slydell v. State, 792 So. 2d 667, 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2001) (“Whether an officer’s suspicion is reasonable is determined by the 

totality of the circumstances which existed at the time of the stop and is 

based solely on facts known to the officer before the stop.”); Grant v. State, 

718 So. 2d 238, 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“Factors that may be considered 

include: the time of day[,] the appearance and behavior of the suspect[,] . . . 

and anything incongruous or unusual in the situation as interpreted in light of 

the officer’s knowledge.”); J.A.R. v. State, 331 So. 3d 220, 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2020), quashed on other grounds, 318 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 2021) (affirming 

adjudication of delinquency for offense of resisting officer without violence 

where defendant ignored clear command to stop).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1197 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1197

   Expressing support for democracy in Honduras and restoring normal 
           relations between Honduras and the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 18, 2010

Mr. Rohrabacher (for himself, Mr. Mack, Mr. Burton of Indiana, and Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
 the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on 
   the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing support for democracy in Honduras and restoring normal 
           relations between Honduras and the United States.

Whereas in January 2010, Porfirio ``Pepe'' Lobo Sosa was inaugurated as 
        President of Honduras;
Whereas President Lobo was brought to power by a free, fair, and democratic 
        election;
Whereas this election demonstrated the durability of and commitment to democracy 
        in Honduras;
Whereas the election of President Lobo has been accepted as legitimate by 
        numerous countries, including the United States; and
Whereas Honduras has many unresolved expropriation claims involving United 
        States citizens against the Government of Honduras: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) requests the Department of State to take such actions 
        as may be necessary to assure that the Government of Honduras 
        acknowledges and settles in good faith and within a reasonable 
        time, all unresolved expropriation claims of United States 
        citizens against the Government of Honduras or its agencies;
            (2) recognizes Honduras as a democratic country and calls 
        on responsible nations to restore normal relations with the 
        Government of Honduras;
            (3) supports Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's 
        announcement that the United States will, ``be restoring aid to 
        Honduras'' and her immediate actions to do so; and
            (4) urges Department of State Consular officials to review 
        new visa applications, submitted by members of the former 
        Government of Honduras under President Micheletti, without 
        prejudice of an applicant's previously revoked visa.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Issac COLE, Jr., a/k/a Brother Cole, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6372.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 23, 2013.

Decided May 29, 2013.

James Issac Cole, Jr., Appellant pro se. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*267Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Issac Cole, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). As we have recognized, however, a district court has no authority to grant a motion to reconsider its previous order denying a 3582(c) motion. *United States v. Goodwyn,*596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir.2010). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.*
| (1)   | the      quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Flex Resources Co. Ltd. for the quarter      ended April 30, 2008, 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 quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter      ended April 30, 2008, fairly presents in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of Flex Resources Co.      Ltd.. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/ Llorn      Kylo                                                             |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                            |
| Name:  | Llorn      Kylo                                                                 |
|   |                                                                            |
| Title: | Principal      Executive Officer, Principal      Financial Officer and Director |
|   |                                                                            |
| Date:  | June      12, 2008                                                              |
March 26 , 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF E .S., A CHILD

NO. 14

- 14

- 00328

- CV

________________________________
T his cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, S.S., signed March 20, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. The record shows that the judgment is not final. We therefore order the appeal DISMISSED

. We order app ellant, A.N. , to p ay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
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 this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Voxware, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Paul
Commons, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Voxware, Inc. and will be retained by Voxware, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  Dated: September 26,
      2005
    
    /s/ Paul
    CommonsPaul CommonsChief Financial
  Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14776]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the 
Metallobiochemistry Study Section, June 14, 2001, 8:30 a.m. to June 15, 
2001, 6:30 p.m., Georgetown Suites, 1000 29th St., NW., Washington, DC, 
20007 which was published in the Federal Register on May 29, 2001, 66 
FR 29160-29163.
    The meeting will be one day only June 14, 2001. The time and 
location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: June 5, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-14776 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Jerry DAUGHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BLACK THUNDER POWERBOATS, INC., a Missouri corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-15433.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 5, 2006.

Filed Dec. 12, 2006.

Scott E. Chapman, Esq., Michael R. Merritt, Esq., Harris Merritt Chapman, Ltd., Henderson, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Dennis L. Kennedy, Esq., Lionel Swayer *&*Collins, Hector J. Carbajal, Esq., Lionel Sawyer & Collins, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: T.G. NELSON, GOULD, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 annual report of Fidelity Aviation Corporation. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report"), I, John Schoenauer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/John SchoenauerJohn Schoenauer, Chief Executive Officer May 13, 2008