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

###### Department of Justice

###### Parole Commission

# ACTION:

Public Announcement of meeting pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (Public Law 94-409; 5 U.S.C. Section 552b).

# Agency Holding Meeting:

Department of Justice, United States Parole Commission.

# Time and Date:

9:30 a.m., Friday, June 22, 2001.

# Place:

5550 Friendship Blvd., Fourth Floor, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

# Status:

Open.

# Matters to be Considered:

The following matters have been placed on the agenda for the open Parole Commission meeting:

1. Approval of minutes of previous Commission meeting.

2. Reports from the Chairman, Commissioners, Legal, Chief of Staff, Case Operations, and Administrative Sections.

3. Discussion on recommended revision of 28 CFR § 2.81(d) concerning the procedures for reparole hearings in District of Columbia Code cases.

# Agency Contact:

Sam Robertson, Case Operations, United States Parole Commission, (301) 492-5962.

Dated: June 15, 2001.

Michael A. Stover,

General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 01-15598 Filed 6-18-01; 1:06 pm]

BILLING CODE 4410-31-M
No. 07-14-00444-CV

Paul Edward Hudson

 Appellant

v.

Dallas County, et al.

 Appellees

§

§

§

§

From the 193rd District Court

 of Dallas County

October 14, 2015

Opinion by Justice Campbell

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated October 14, 2015, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
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 Options Media Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Scott Frohman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





1.
The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Scott FrohmanScott Frohman

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: May 23, 2011




















In connection with the quarterly report of Options Media Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Steve Stowell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





1.
The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Steve StowellSteve Stowell

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)


Dated: May 23, 2011
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 amended quarterly report of SiriCOMM, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 4, 2005 (the "Report"), I, J.
Richard Iler, Chief Financial 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/ J. Richard Iler
-------------------------
J. Richard Iler
Chief Financial Officer
September 30, 2005


A signed original of this certification 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7028

BILLY TRUMAN WINGO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SERGEANT KING, Pulaski Correctional Unit; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HAMMER, Pulaski Correctional

Unit,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-365)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 25, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Truman Wingo, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Wingo v. King, No. CA-96-365 (W.D. Va. June 25, 1996). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Craig BASSETT, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-6061.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        31


        <NAME>      Fidelity Pacific Basin Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

year


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

oct-31-1997


<PERIOD-END>

oct-31-1997


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

241,934


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

239,841


<RECEIVABLES>

5,187


<ASSETS-OTHER>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

245,028


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

3,059


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

2,452


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

5,511


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

304,984


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

17,867


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

39,062


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

0


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

336


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

(62,737)


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

(2,394)


<NET-ASSETS>

239,517


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

4,224


<INTEREST-INCOME>

566


<OTHER-INCOME>

(371)


<EXPENSES-NET>

4,543


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

(124)


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

(32,319)


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

9,562


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

(22,881)


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

2,524


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

6,377


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

27,740


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

169


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

(332,632)


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

364


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

(28,469)


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

2,425


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

14


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

4,603


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

347,505


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

14.650


<PER-SHARE-NII>

(.010)


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

(1.160)


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .080


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

0


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

13.410


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

132


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
Order entered April 23, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00913-CR

ANTHONY BEANS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. f11-72079-y

ORDER

On March 29, 2013, this Court ordered court reporter Sharon Hazlewood to file a 

supplemental record containing the jury verdict and punishment proceedings within fifteen days. 

To date, Ms. Hazlewood has neither filed the supplemental record nor communicated with the 

Court regarding the status of the record. However, appellant cites to the record in his brief, so it 

appears the record has been prepared.

Accordingly, we ORDER court reporter Sharon Hazlewood to file, within TEN DAYS

of the date of this order, a supplemental record containing the jury verdict and punishment 

proceedings. No further extensions will be granted. If Ms. Hazlewood does not file the 

supplemental record within the time specified, we will order that she not sit as a court reporter 

until she files the supplemental record in this case.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Michael Snipes, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 7; Sharon Hazlewood, 

official court reporter, Criminal District Court No. 7; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1



CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION



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 CyberSource Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), I, William S. McKiernan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the
best of my knowledge:



(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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                     |  |  |  |                            
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 10, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    WILLIAM S.
MCKIERNAN
|                     |  |  |  | William S. McKiernan       
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-3030

___________________________

Donald E. Burnett

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Christine Machtly, Former Deputy Director

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Central Division

 ____________

 Submitted: July 24, 2019 

Filed: July 25, 2019 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this mortgage-related action, Donald Burnett appeals after the district court

1

dismissed his complaint, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Upon

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the

1

Southern District of Iowa.
careful review of the record and Burnett’s properly raised arguments on appeal, we

find no basis for reversal. First, we conclude the district court did not err in

determining that Burnett failed to state a due process claim. See Hughes v. City of

Cedar Rapids, 840 F.3d 987, 994 (8th Cir. 2016) (discussing the requirements for a

procedural due process claim); Kelly v. City of Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir.

2016) (stating a grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de

novo). Furthermore, we conclude Burnett’s mere referencesto other types of claims,

without more, did not state claims for relief. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914

(8th Cir. 2004) (“Though pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, . . . they still

must allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced.”). Finally, we conclude

the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to invite Burnett to amend his

complaint. See Carlson v. Hyundai Motor Co., 164 F.3d 1160, 1162 (8th Cir. 1999)

(holding “a district court does not abuse its discretion in failing to invite an amended

complaint when plaintiff has not moved to amend and submitted a proposed amended

pleading”).

 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

______________________________

-2-
First Amendment To The Pepco Holdings 2014 Management Employee Severance Plan



 Exhibit 10.3 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 

PEPCO HOLDINGS, INC. 

2014 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE SEVERANCE PLAN 

This First Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Pepco Holdings, Inc. 2014 Management Employee Severance Plan (the
“Severance Plan”) is made, effective as of March 23, 2016 (the “Effective Date”). Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Severance Plan. 

WHEREAS, the Severance Plan provides that PEPCO HOLDINGS, INC. (the “Company”) may amend the Severance Plan at any
time, subject to certain exceptions; and 
 WHEREAS, the Compensation/Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Company (the “Committee” and the “Board”, respectively) has recommended, and the Board has determined, that it is in the best interests of the Company to amend the Pepco Holdings, Inc. Retirement Plan to provide
certain additional benefits in lieu of severance benefits and that the Severance Plan shall be amended to avoid a duplication of benefits; and 

WHEREAS, the Board has delegated to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company authority to amend the Severance Plan as provided below.

 NOW, THEREFORE, the Severance Plan is hereby amended to add the following new section immediately preceding the section titled: “Change in
Control”: 
  

			
	Nonduplication of Benefits	  	Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan, any benefit payable to an individual covered under this Plan (including, but not limited to, any Severance Cash Benefit or Special Good Reason Severance Benefit) shall be reduced (but
not below zero) by the amount, if any, payable to or on behalf of such individual under Section 3.7 of Sub-Plan Four of the PHI Retirement Plan (including as incorporated by reference into other sub-plans of the PHI Retirement Plan), expressed in
the form of a lump sum payable on the first annuity starting date after the date such individual terminates employment.








 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be signed this 23rd day of March, 2016. 
  

									
	ATTEST:	 		 	Pepco Holdings, Inc.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Jane K. Storero
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Joseph M. Rigby

		 	      Jane K. Storero	 		 		 	      Joseph M. Rigby
		 	      Secretary	 		 		 	      Chairman of the Board, President
		 		 		 		 	         and Chief Executive Officer


  
 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY COLEMAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, FKA Bank of New York, as Trustee for American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004

- 4 Mortgaged Backed Notes, Series 2004

- 4; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 16915

D.C. No. 2:16

- cv

- 01339

- RFB

- GWF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020 * *

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE , Circuit Judges.

Anthony Coleman appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAR 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 16915

foreclos ure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo. Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP , 584 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th

Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Coleman’s state

law claims because Coleman failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to

whether he has standing to challenge the assignments of the deed of trust or

whether MERS ’s involvement rendered the assignments improper

. See Wood v.

Germann
, 331 P.3d 859, 862 ( Nev. 2014) ( under N evada law, because “the

homeowner is neither a party to nor an intended beneficiary of the [Pooling and

Servicing Agreement] , the homeowner lacks standing to contest the assignment’s

validity”); Edelstein v. Bank of N .Y. Mellon , 286 P.3d 249, 260

- 61 ( Nev. 2012)

( explaining that MERS’s assignment of the deed of trust along with the promissory

note demonstrates valid transfer of both instruments ).

Coleman abandoned his claims under the Truth In Lending Act and the Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act by f ailing to provide any argument regarding these

claims in his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment

. See Shakur

v. Schriro , 514 F.3d 878, 892 (9th Cir. 2008) ( claims not raised in opposition to

summary judgment are deemed abandoned).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on3 18

- 16915

a ppeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Coleman’s motion to withdraw the motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 22)

is granted. Accordingly, Coleman’s request for voluntary dismissal of the appeal

(Docket Entry No. 20) is denied as moot

.

AFFIRMED.
Notice of Grant of Warrants
 and Warrant Agreement

Miravant Medical Technologies: Warrants

ID: 77-0222872
336 Bollay Drive
Santa Barbara, CA  93117

Joseph E. Nida
Option Number: [NUMBER]

Plan: CONS

Nida & Maloney
800 Anacapa Street
Santa Barbara, CA  93101

ID: NIDAJO

Effective [DATE], you have been granted a(n)  Non-Qualified  Stock Option to buy
[# of SHARES] shares of Miravant  Medical  Technologies:  Warrants (the Company)
stock at [$PRICE] per share.  The total  option  price of the shares  granted is
[$VALUE].

Shares in each period will become fully vested on the date shown.

Shares
Vest Type
Full Vest
Expiration


-----------------------------                   ------------------
Miravant Medical Technologies                   Date



-----------------------------                   ------------------
Nida & Maloney                                  Date
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 SiriCOMM, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2004 (the "Report"), I,
Henry P. Hoffman, 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/ Henry P. Hoffman
-----------------------------
Henry P. Hoffman
Chief Executive Officer
February 19, 2004


A signed original of this certification 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.
Eric Kenneth JONES, petitioner, v. Tom McGINLEY, Acting Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Coal Township, et al.

No. 16-5974.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
|   | (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:  November      9, 2009 | /s/ James N. Hauslein                                        |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   | James      N. Hauslein                                       |   |
|                                   | Chief      Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer |   |

----
Philip Andra GRIGSBY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-8796.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.