alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56470-56471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19225]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special 
Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice 
of a decision to designate a class of employees at the Iowa Army 
Ammunition Plant, in Burlington, Iowa as an addition to the Special 
Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program Act of 2000. On August 25, 2005, the Secretary of 
HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the 
SEC:
    Department of Energy (DOE) employees or DOE contractor or 
subcontractor employees who worked as radiographers from May 1948 to 
March 1949 in support of Line 1 operations at the Iowa Army Ammunition 
Plant and who were employed for a number of work days aggregating at 
least 250 work days, occurring under this employment in combination 
with work days of employment occurring within the parameters (excluding 
aggregate work day requirements) established for other classes of 
employees included in the SEC.
    This designation will become effective on September 24, 2005, 
unless Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After 
this effective date,

[[Page 56471]]

HHS will publish a notice in the Federal Register reporting the 
addition of this class to the SEC or the result of any provision by 
Congress regarding the decision by HHS to add the class to the SEC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of 
Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 
45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). 
Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9dd2dedcceddded9deb3dad2cb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0fff3f1e3f0f3f4f39ef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 20, 2005.
John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 05-19225 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-17-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,021

EX PARTE JOE M. GARZA, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F-0042583-KJ IN CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of driving while

intoxicated and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel, Catherine Shelton who was disbarred in 2007,

rendered ineffective assistance because she failed to file a notice of appeal. The trial court has

determined that appellate counsel failed to file a notice of appeal. We find, therefore, that Applicant

is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of conviction in Cause No.
2

F-0042583-KJ from Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County. Applicant is ordered returned

to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then, with the aid of

counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been

imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant

desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the

trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Applicant’s remaining claims are dismissed. See Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1997).

Delivered: October 15, 2008

Do Not Publish
Moore v. Caldwell

158P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Mr. Larry Brandon Moore, Pro Se

Mr. Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, For Caldwell, Jesse B. (III) (Judge)

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of May 2016 by Petitioner for Petition for Order to Show Cause Under Common Law:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
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 NACO Industries, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  Quarter  Ended  February  29,  2004 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey
J. Kirby, 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, 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 result of  operations of the
Company.

/s/ Jeffrey J. Kirby
--------------------------
Jeffrey J. Kirby
Chief Financial Officer
April 13, 2004


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 2002, as amended.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10197 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Fernando Rodriguez**

**- Macedo,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20

- CR

- 26 0

- 1

Before **Wiener, Dennis,** and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * Fernando Rodriguez

- Macedo appeals the 36

- month prison sentence and three

- year term of supervised release imposed on his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that because his indictment did not speci fy the prior f elony conviction

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 19, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10197 Document: 00515985517 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2021No. 21

- 10197

2 that formed the basis of his sentencing enhancement, his sentence, imposed under § 1326(b)(1), exceeded the two

- year maximum sentence under § 1326(a) and therefore violated his due process rights. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief. As the Government correctly argues and Rodriguez

- Macedo correctly concedes, this appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S . 224 (1998). See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda

- Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

- 26 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the issue is foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Da vis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Consequently, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , and the district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED** . The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief is **DENIED** as unnecessary
. Case: 21-10197 Document: 00515985517 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2021
Abrons Family Practice And Urgent Care, PA ; Nash Ob-Gyn Associates, PA; Highland Obstetrical-Gynecological Clinic, PA ; Children's Health of Carolina, PA; Capital Nephrology Associates, PA; Hickory Allergy & Asthma Clinic, PA; Halifax Medical Specialists, PA ; and Westside Ob-gyn Center, PA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services and Computer Sciences Corporation

No. 427A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Camden R. Webb, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth Connolly Stone, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Abrons Family Practice And Urgent Care, PA, et al.

Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Assistant Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

Jennifer K. Van Zant, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Charles F. Marshall, III, Attorney at Law, Bryan Starrett, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Bryant C. Boren, Jr., Attorney at Law, Ryan L. Bangert, Attorney at Law, Van H. Beckwith, Attorney at Law, for Computer Sciences Corporation.

Mark S. Thomas, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendant (NCDHHS) on the 22nd of November 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30754

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHRIS WALKER

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:05-CR-297-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Chris Walker appeals his sentence of life imprisonment under 21 U.S.C.

§ 841 following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess

with the intentto distribute cocaine base, cocaine hydrochloride, and marijuana

and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base, cocaine hydrochloride,

and marijuana. He argues that the district court erred in enhancing his

sentence under § 841 based on his prior state conviction for distribution of

marijuana because the conviction resulted from a plea of nolo contendere.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 26, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30754

1Walker does not challenge the sentences imposed at the same time on his

other charges.

2

Walker contends that an admission of guilt is necessary to constitute a

conviction within the meaning of § 841. 

This court need not address Walker’s contention, which seeks a

construction of the § 841 enhancement provision. The district court rendered

an alternative sentence after it properly calculated Walker’s guidelines range

and imposed a sentence within the guidelines range. Thus, Walker’s sentence

of life imprisonment founded on the guidelines is entitled to a presumption of

reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006).

Nothing in the record indicates that the court committed procedural error in

calculating the Guidelines, and the sentence is substantively reasonable. See

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007).1

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4115 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4115

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to temporarily waive certain 
   vehicle weight limits for covered logging vehicles, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2014

   Mr. Nolan (for himself, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Ribble, and Mr. Peterson) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Transportation to temporarily waive certain 
   vehicle weight limits for covered logging vehicles, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Winter Roads Safety Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY WAIVER.

    (a) In General.--During the period beginning on the date of 
enactment of this Act and ending on April 15, 2014, the Secretary of 
Transportation shall waive, for a covered logging vehicle, the 
application of any vehicle weight limit established under section 127 
of title 23, United States Code.
    (b) Covered Logging Vehicle Defined.--In this section, the term 
``covered logging vehicle'' means a vehicle that--
            (1) is transporting raw or unfinished forest products, 
        including logs, pulpwood, biomass, or wood chips;
            (2) has a gross vehicle weight of not more than 99,000 
        pounds;
            (3) has not less than 6 axles; and
            (4) is operating on a segment of--
                    (A) Interstate Route 35 in Minnesota from mile 
                marker 235.4 to mile marker 259.552;
                    (B) Interstate Route 535 in Minnesota from mile 
                marker 0 to mile marker 1.571;
                    (C) Interstate Route 39 in Wisconsin from mile 
                marker 175.8 to mile marker 189; or
                    (D) Interstate Route 535 in Wisconsin from mile 
                marker 0 to mile marker 1.19.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
4.3



Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated July 17, 2014, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-196475) of Smart Trust, Zacks
Diversified Equity & Corporate Bond Trust, Series 6.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


Grant
Thornton LLP


Chicago, Illinois


July 17, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19057]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CA-668-1040-AA]


Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Advisory 
Committee--Notice of Renewal

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of renewal.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is published in accordance with section 9(a)(2) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-463). Notice is 
hereby given that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
Agriculture have renewed the Bureau of Land Management's Santa Rosa and 
San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Advisory Committee.
    The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretaries with 
respect to the preparation and implementation of the Santa Rosa and San 
Jacinto Mountains National Monument Management Plan.

Certification Statement

    I hereby certify that the renewal of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 
Mountains National Monument Advisory Committee is necessary and in the 
public interest in connection with the Secretary of the Interior's and 
the Secretary of Agriculture's responsibilities to manage the lands, 
resources, and facilities administered by the Bureau of Land Management 
and the Forest Service.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie Langlas, National Landscape 
Conservation System (WO-170), Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street, 
NW., Room 301 LS, Washington, DC 20240-9998, telephone (202) 452-7787.

Gale A. Norton,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 05-19057 Filed 9-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7571

OBBIE L. GOODS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GWEN HAIRSTON; B. J. BARNES, Sheriff; C. J. WILLIAMSON,

Division Commander,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:01-cv-00026-NCT)

Submitted: June 9, 2008 Decided: October 9, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Obbie L. Goods, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Price Weaver, Richard

David Yeoman, BROTHERTON, FORD, YEOMAN & BERRY, PLLC, Greensboro,

North Carolina; Susan D. Moore, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Obbie L. Goods appeals the district court’s orders

adopting reports and recommendations of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on Goods’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Goods v. Hairston, No. 1:01-cv-00026-NCT (M.D.N.C. Oct. 21,

2002 & Sept. 24, 2007). 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
Order filed, January 23, 2019.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14 - 18 - 00905 - CR N O. 14 - 18 - 00906 - CR NO. 14 - 18 - 00907 - CR NO. 14 - 18 - 00908 - CR NO. 14 - 18 - 00909 - CR NO. 14 - 18 - 00910 - CR NO. 14 - 18 - 00911 - CR

____________ ISAEL LEYVA LEMUS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. 1570005 , 157006, 1570 0 11, 1570012, 1570013, 1570014, 1570015



### ORDERThe reporter’s record in this case was due November 19, 2018

. See Tex. R.

App. P. 35.1. On December 11, 2018, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 30 days. The record has not been filed wi th the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order. We order Janet Ragan , the substitute court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. No further extension wil l be entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Janet Ragan does not timely file the record as ordered, we may issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
# C_2008092EN.01000802.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-211/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Incorrect transposition - Directive 84/5/EEC - Article 1(4) - Compulsory insurance for civil liability in respect of motor vehicles - Conditions for the exclusion from compensation of passengers in an uninsured vehicle)

(2008/C 92/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D.J. O'Hagan, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 1(4) of Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17) — Compensation in respect of damage caused by inadequately insured vehicles — Exclusion conditions going beyond those provided for by the directive

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that, by maintaining in force clauses 5.2 and 5.3 of the Motor Insurance Agreement of 31 March 2004 between the Minister for Transport and the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third subparagraph of Article 1(4) of Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that, by maintaining in force clauses 5.2 and 5.3 of the Motor Insurance Agreement of 31 March 2004 between the Minister for Transport and the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third subparagraph of Article 1(4) of Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles.

| 2) | Orders Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

1

---