alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14966]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. the grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, Innovative Technologies for the Molecular Analysis of Cancer.
    Date: July 18-20, 2001.
    Time: 7 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Thomas M. Vollberg, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Special Review, Referral and Resources Branch, 
Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 
National Institute of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8049, 
Rockville, MD 20852, 301/594-9582.
    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. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis; 93.395, Cancer Treatment 
Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers 
Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 7, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-14966 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,

RELATOR §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 0 7 8

- C V

An Original Proceeding

in Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Midland Funding, LLC, has filed a mandamus petition against the Honorable

Carlos Villa, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 5 of El Paso, County, asking that the Court

order Respondent to set aside the judgment entered in favo r of Miguel Marquez, the Real Party

in Interest, and to dismiss the de novo appeal from the Justice Court. We deny the petition for

writ of mandamus.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator generally must meet two requirements. First,

the relator mu st show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. In re Prudential Insurance

Company of America , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). Second, the relator must demonstrate

that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Id . at 136.

On July 27, 2016, the Court issued its opinion granting mandamus relief. The Court

granted Marquez’s motion for rehearing and permitted him to file a response to the mandamus- 2

-

petition . Based on the record before us, we conclude that Relator has failed to establish that it is

entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

February 17, 2017

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

Hughes, J., Not Participating
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie M. Robinson, Appellant.

[884 NYS2d 488]

McCarthy, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered June 8, 2007, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of assault in the first degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree.

Defendant, an inmate at the Broome County Jail, was convicted of two counts of assault in the first degree and one count of assault in the second degree following a jury trial. He was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to a total prison term of 23 years and postrelease supervision of five years. Defendant now appeals, arguing that he was deprived of a fair trial because he had on leg shackles during the trial.

It is clear that *“a*defendant may not be physically restrained before the jury unless there is a reasonable basis, articulated on the record, for doing so” *(People v Rouse,*79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]; *see People v Jenner,*39 AD3d 1083, 1087 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 845 [2007]). Defendant has a violent criminal history, the present charges arose out of an assault upon another inmate that left the victim blind in one eye, and defendant allegedly stated that he was “supposed to be blind in both eyes.” He also told defense counsel that he felt “sorry for anyone around [him] if this [instant case] goes bad.” Moreover, defendant had behaved in a volatile and intimidating manner in a previous trial, presided over by the same judge. We thus have no difficulty concluding from these facts that “County Court had ample basis to find that defendant was a viable threat to the safety and security of those persons in the courtroom and the *804public at large” *(People v Brown,*176 AD2d 408, 408 [1991], *lv denied*79 NY2d 853 [1992]; *see People v Allaway,*13 AD3d 715, 716 [2004]). Finally, given the failure to request a jury instruction regarding his leg shackles, County Court was not obliged to give such instruction *(see People v Rouse,*79 NY2d at 935).

Peters, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
## EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Cost-U-Less, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 26, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J.
Jeffrey Meder, President and Chief Executive 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  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.

Date: August 9, 2005

| | /s/ J. Jeffrey MederJ. Jeffrey Meder
President and
Chief Executive Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
Adrean Lamont JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6146.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
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 Cost-U-Less, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 27, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Jeffrey Meder,
President and Chief Executive 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 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.

Date: August 9, 2004

| | /s/     J. Jeffrey Meder             
| | -------------------------------------
| |                                      
| | J. Jeffrey Meder                     
| | President and Chief Executive Officer

---

---
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00396

- CV

In re Arnulfo Hernandez §

§

§

§ From the 325th District Court

o f Tarrant County (325

- 478228

- 10 )

January 22, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gabriel



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered relator Arnulfo Hernandez’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus and is of the opinion that relief should be granted. Accordingly,

we vacate the trial court’s December 16, 2014 commitment order, order

Hernandez discharged from custody, and we order any sureties discharged from

all obligations on Hernandez’s bond.

It is ordered that real party in interest Athelia Rooker pay all costs of this

proceeding , for which let execut ion issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15352]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 368

[Docket No. FMCSA-98-3297]
RIN 2126-AA33


Revision of Regulations and Application Form for Mexican-
Domiciled Motor Carriers To Operate in U.S. Municipalities and 
Commercial Zones on the U.S.-Mexico Border; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the preamble to the proposed rule 
published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2001, regarding Revision of 
Regulations and Application Form for Mexican-Domiciled Motor Carriers 
to Operate in U.S. Municipalities and Commercial Zones on the U.S.-
Mexico Border. This correction revises a statement about the type of 
authority that most new applicants are expected to request by making it 
consistent with a similar statement in the rulemaking analysis. This 
correction would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because the regulatory flexibility 
analysis is already based upon the corrected statement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Valerie Height, (202) 366-6408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rule published in the Federal 
Register on May 3, 2001, (66 FR 22328) makes contradictory statements 
concerning the type of authority that most new applicants would request 
under the liberalized NAFTA entry provisions. We believe that most of 
the new Mexican applicants will register to operate solely within the 
border area. This revision is consistent with a similar statement in 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis on page 22331, column three, in 
the third sentence of the first full paragraph.
    In proposed rule FR Doc. 01-11034 published on May 3, 2001, (66 FR 
22328) make the following correction. On page 22328, in the second 
column, revise the last sentence to read as follows:
    ``With the implementation of the NAFTA entry provision, it is 
expected that additional Mexican-domiciled motor carriers will seek to 
operate in the United States, most of them within the border area.''

    Issued on: June 13, 2001.
Julie Anna Cirillo,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-15352 Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-M
Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the previously
filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-38022 and
333-50500) and on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-65574) of TTR Technologies,
Inc.("TTR") of our report dated February 28, 2002 relating to the financial
statements which appear in TTR's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2001.


/s/ Brightman Almagor & Co.

Certified Public Accountants (Israel)
A member of Deloitte & Touche

Tel-Aviv, Israel
April 30, 2002


                                       34
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: HARRY STURM 

DOCKET NUMBER: 182 

DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 1971 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 182 

Name: Harry Sturm 

Effective: On or about November 6, 1971 

Order 

(a) Respondent, Harry Sturm, shall cease and desist (1) from failing to file, 

in accordance with the Commodity Exchange Act and the regulations thereunder, 

such reports as he is required to file under such act and regulations, and (2) 

from trading or holding positions in amounts in excess of the maximum limits 

established by the orders of the Commodity Exchange Commission. 

The cease and desist provisions of this order set forth in paragraph (a) 

above shall become effective upon the date of service of this order upon the 

respondent. 

A copy of this Decision and Order shall be served on each of the parties and 

on each contract market. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

NOV 1 1971 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
<PAGE>   1


                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of SDL, Inc. of our report dated January 29, 1999, included in the 1998
Annual Report to Stockholders of SDL, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of SDL, Inc. listed
in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.
In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-90848, 33-92200, 333-57683) pertaining to the
1995 Stock Option Plan, 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1992 Stock Option
Plan and the Amended and Restated 1984 Incentive Stock Option Plan of SDL,
Inc. of our report dated January 29, 1999, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements incorporated here by reference, and our report included
in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of SDL, Inc.


                                               /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
San Jose, California
March 22, 1999
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gregory Grant NOBLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-40628

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 20, 2012.

Lisa Grisset Flournoy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lufkin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Margaret Loraine Schmucker, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gregory Grant Noble appeals the sentence of 151-months’ imprisonment un-*349posed following his guilty-plea conviction of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He contends the Government breached the plea agreement by supporting application of the Sentencing Guidelines’ career-offender provision. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Review is *de novo. E.g., United States v.*Roberts, 624 F.3d 241, 245 (5th Cir.2010).

The written plea agreement stipulated a base offense level of 20, but contained the following provision: “The parties also agree that the defendant’s offense level may be affected by the criminal history calculation by the United States Probation Office, and it will not be a violation of this agreement for either party to argue for or against the changed offense level resulting from the defendant’s criminal history.” The Government’s subsequent support of the career-offender enhancement is consistent with this provision. *See id.*at 245-46.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
 
<ARTICLE> 6 
<CIK> 0000744822
<NAME> Fidelity Investment Trust
<SERIES>
 <NUMBER> 201
 <NAME> Fidelity Hong Kong and China  Fund
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>
<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 year          
 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             oct-31-1997   
 
<PERIOD-END>                  oct-31-1997   
 
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>         212,850       
 
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>        178,780       
 
<RECEIVABLES>                 8,412         
 
<ASSETS-OTHER>                29            
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>          0             
 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                187,221       
 
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>      5,060         
 
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>       0             
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>     4,745         
 
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>           9,805         
 
<SENIOR-EQUITY>               0             
 
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>      206,309       
 
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>         16,040        
 
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>         8,471         
 
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>     2,039         
 
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>        0             
 
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>       3,137         
 
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>      0             
 
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>      (34,069)      
 
<NET-ASSETS>                  177,416       
 
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>             4,897         
 
<INTEREST-INCOME>             503           
 
<OTHER-INCOME>                0             
 
<EXPENSES-NET>                2,843         
 
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>       2,557         
 
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>      3,356         
 
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>     (45,266)      
 
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>         (39,353)      
 
<EQUALIZATION>                0             
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>     1,742         
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>      995           
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>         0             
 
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>       26,276        
 
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>   18,904        
 
<SHARES-REINVESTED>           198           
 
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>        67,536        
 
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>       1,472         
 
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>     976           
 
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>       0             
 
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>    0             
 
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>         1,625         
 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0             
 
<GROSS-EXPENSE>               2,843         
 
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>          217,498       
 
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>         12.970        
 
<PER-SHARE-NII>               .170          
 
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>       (1.950)       
 
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>          .140          
 
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>     .080          
 
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>          0             
 
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>           11.060        
 
<EXPENSE-RATIO>               131           
 
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>        0             
 
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>          0
No. 267.

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

October 14, 1935.

Petition for *607writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied.

*Messrs. Moultrie Hitt*and *G. Kirby Munson*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Wideman,*and *Messrs. James W. Morris*and *F. E. Youngman*for respondent.
Exhibit 10.7


 



UNSECURED PROMISSORY NOTE












March 24, 2016




U.S. $50,000.00 












FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Eos Petro, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Issuer"), hereby promises to pay to the order of Plethora Enterprises, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company (the "Payee"), at such place as the Payee shall direct in writing, the principal sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), with interest at 10.00% on the unpaid balance.  All references to Dollars herein are to lawful currency of the United States of America.







All unpaid principal of this Note and accrued interest shall be due and payable on July 1, 2016 (the "Maturity Date"). This Note may be prepaid at any time in whole or in part without penalty.







In any action at law or in equity to enforce or construe any provisions or rights under this Note, the unsuccessful party or parties to such litigation, as determined by a court pursuant to a final offer, judgment or decree, shall pay to the successful party or parties all costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by such successful party.







This Note and all actions arising out of or in connection with this Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to the conflicts of law provisions of the State of California, or of any other state.

















Eos Petro, Inc.


A Nevada corporation












By: /s/ Nikolas Konstant


    Nikolas Konstant


    Its: Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15266]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1369-DR]


Wisconsin; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Wisconsin, (FEMA-1369-DR), dated May 11, 2001, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3772.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Wisconsin is hereby amended to include the following 
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of May 11, 2001:

    Bayfield County for Individual Assistance (already designated 
for Public Assistance). (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing 
funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund 
Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services 
Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, 
Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant 
(IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster 
Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 01-15266 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P