alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 58390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20025]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by November 
7, 2005.
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Custodianship Certificate to Support 
Claim on Behalf of Minor Children of Deceased Members of the Armed 
Forces; DD Form 2790; OMB Control Number 0730-0010.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 300.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 300.
    Average Burden per Response: 24 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 120.
    Needs and Uses: Per DoD Financial Management Regulation, 7000.14-R, 
Volume 7B, Chapter 46, paragraph 460103A(1), an annuity for a minor 
child is paid to the legal guardian, or, if there is no legal guardian, 
to the natural parent who has care, custody, and control of the child 
as custodian, or to a representative payee of the child. An annuity may 
be paid directly to the child when the child is considered to be of 
majority age under the law in the state of residence. The child then is 
considered an adult for annuity purposes and a custodian or legal 
fiduciary is not required.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Lewis Oleinick.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Oleinick at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings, WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209.

    Dated: September 27, 2005.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 05-20025 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
STATE of North Carolina v. Douglas Trent JORDAN, Defendant.

No. COA17-504

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 17, 2018

NO ERROR.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30772

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TERRENCE O. LAFAYETTE,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. CR-94-88-B

- - - - - - - - - -

June 19, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Terrence O. Lafayette appeals his sentence for possession of

cocaine with intent to distribute. Lafayette challenges the

district court's determination of the relevant quantity of drugs,

argues that he was a minimal participant in the offense, and

contends that the district court should have granted his motion

for downward departure.
No. 95-30772

-2-

The district court did not clearly err in holding Lafayette

responsible for the entire quantity of cocaine involved in the 

transaction or in finding that his role in the offense was not

minimal. United States v. Hernandez-Coronado, 39 F.3d 573, 574

(5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 214 (1994). We lack jurisdiction

to consider Lafayette's argument concerning the denial of a

downward departure because there is no indication that the

district court's decision was based on legal error or a

misapplication of the Guidelines. United States v. DiMarco, 46

F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
CABARRUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, OBO Denesha S. MORGAN, Plaintiff v. Daniel J. MORGAN, Defendant

No. COA17-487

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 19, 2018

REVERSED. REMANDED.
#### Derrick JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D02-1630.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 24, 2003.

Derrick Johnson, pro se.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General and Joy A. Stubbs, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *Hollingsworth v. Brown,*788 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ„ concur.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4520 

To require passenger aircraft to transmit GPS location data. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2014 

Mr. STOCKMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require passenger aircraft to transmit GPS location data. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Aircraft Positioning 

5 Modernization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that when an aircraft crashes in an 

8 area far from radar, the aircraft and its flight recorder 

9 can be difficult to find, necessitating expensive search and 

10 rescue operations. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4520 IH

1 SEC. 3. GENERAL AUTHORIZATION. 

2 Section 91.609(c) of the Code of Federal Regulations 

3 shall be amended to require that the Global Positioning 

4 System coordinate information shall be periodically trans5 mitted to a receiving facility at a time frequency of 30 

6 minutes. 

7 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

8 The provisions of this Act shall take effect three years 

9 following enactment. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE v. Christina Shea WALTERS

548A00-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2018

Shelagh R. Kenney, Attorney at Law, Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Walters, Christina Shea.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney at Law, Dallas, TX, for Becton, Charles, et al.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller.

Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers.

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of July 2018 by Social Scientists for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2018."
STATE v. Jeffrey Robert PARISI

65A17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 6, 2018

John W. Congleton, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Michele A. Goldman, Attorney at Law, Boston, MA, for Parisi, Jeffrey Robert.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 6th of August 2018 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of August 2018."
STATE of North Carolina v. Raul Pachicano DIAZ

No. 412PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Ms. Marilyn G. Ozer, Attorney at Law, Mr. Neil C. Dalton, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for NC State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by State of NC on the 22nd of December 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 8th of December 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition in the Alternative filed on the 22nd of December *2332017 by State of NC in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

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).
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF BDO SEIDMAN, LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

eGain Communications Corporation 

Mountain View, California 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.’s 333-76692, 333-76690, 333-76688, 333-41394, and333-32854) and Form S-3 (No. 333-48314) of eGain Communications Corporation of our report dated August 5, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

/s/    BDO Seidman, LLP 

San Francisco, California 

 

September 24, 2004
# C_2018161EN.01006201.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/62

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-166/18)

(2018/C 161/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 3 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 3 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

Amisi Kumba

Council

---
WORLEY, et al. v. MOORE, et al.

310A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2017

Adam H. Charnes, Attorney at Law, Thomas J. Ludlam, Attorney at Law, John M. Moye, Attorney at Law, for Moore, Roy J., et al.

R. Daniel Boyce, Attorney at Law, David S. Pokela, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Jerrold Joseph Ganzfried, Attorney at Law, for Worley, Dennis, et al

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of September 2017 by Plaintiffs for Leave to Submit Supplemental Response:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of December 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
ELI GLOBAL, LLC, et al. v. HEAVNER

12PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 27, 2017

Mr. Matthew N. Leerberg, Mr. Kip David Nelson, Mr. Kendal B. Reed, Justice Robert H. Edmunds, Jr., Attorney at Law, For Eli Global, LLC, et al.

Mr. James H. Hughes, Mr. Richard M. Hutson, II, Mr. Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Mr. Hampton Y. Dellinger, Attorney at Law, For Heavner, James A.

Mr. Charles F. Marshall, III, Mr. Mark J. Prak, Mr. Timothy Nelson, Attorney at Law, For NC Association of Broadcasters, et al.

Mr. Stuart M. Paynter, Ms. Celeste H. G. Boyd, Attorney at Law, For Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce.

The following order has been entered on the Joint motion filed on the 27th of October 2017 to Continue Oral Argument:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of October 2017."
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**FERMAVIR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**

**FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JANUARY 31, 2007**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

I am the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of FermaVir Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”).  I am delivering this certificate inconnection with the Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended January31, 2007 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Form 10-QSB”).

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Form10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained inthe Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| March 26, 2007 | /s/ Geoffrey W. Henson  |   |
|----------------|-------------------------|--------|
|           | Geoffrey W. Henson,     |
|           | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Bill MESSER d/b/a Messer's Excavating, Plaintiff, v. Roy POLLACK and wife, Adrienne Pollack, Defendants.

No. COA17-582

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

VACATED. REMANDED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6103

DAN OLIVER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

D. BRAXTON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief

District Judge. (CA-01-349-AM)

Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dan Oliver, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Dan Oliver seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Oliver v. Braxton, No. CA-01-349-

AM (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 8, 2001 & entered Nov. 9, 2001). Oliver’s

motion for return of legal documents is denied. 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1




Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




I, William C. Bayless, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of American Campus Communities, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:




(i) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and




(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: November 6, 2009
/s/ William C. Bayless, Jr.William C. Bayless, Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4200 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4200

  To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to prevent duplicative 
     regulation of advisers of small business investment companies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 2014

 Mr. Luetkemeyer introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to prevent duplicative 
     regulation of advisers of small business investment companies.

    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 ``SBIC Advisers Relief Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. ADVISERS OF SBICS AND VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS.

    Section 203(l) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 
80b-3(l)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``No investment adviser'' and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(1) In general.--No investment adviser''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Advisers of sbics.--For purposes of this subsection, 
        a venture capital fund includes an entity described in 
        subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (b)(7) (other than 
        an entity that has elected to be regulated or is regulated as a 
        business development company pursuant to section 54 of the 
        Investment Company Act of 1940).''.

SEC. 3. ADVISERS OF SBICS AND PRIVATE FUNDS.

    Section 203(m) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 
80b-3(m)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Advisers of sbics.--For purposes of this subsection, 
        the assets under management of a private fund that is an entity 
        described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (b)(7) 
        (other than an entity that has elected to be regulated or is 
        regulated as a business development company pursuant to section 
        54 of the Investment Company Act of 1940) shall be excluded 
        from the limit set forth in paragraph (1).''.

SEC. 4. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAW.

    Section 203A(b)(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 
U.S.C. 80b-3a(b)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) that is not registered under section 203 
                because that person is exempt from registration as 
                provided in subsection (b)(7) of such section, or is a 
                supervised person of such person.''.
                                 <all>
```
----

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/37.750 — Brasseries Kronenbourg, Brasseries Heineken

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2005/C 175/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft decision in the present case does not give rise to particular comments on the proceedings.

On 5 February 2004 the Commission sent a Statement of Objections to Groupe Danone, Brasserie Kronenbourg S.A, Heineken N.V and Heineken France S.A. Access to file was granted on 10 and 11 February 2004 for Groupe Danone and Brasserie Kronenbourg S.A. and on 12 February 2004 for Heineken N.V and Heineken S.A.

The parties responded in writing between 2 and 6 April 2004. All parties waived their right to an oral hearing.

In the light of responses to the Statement of Objections, the Commission limited the scope of the objections against the parties.

I conclude that the rights to be heard have been respected in the present case. The draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views.

Brussels, 22 September 2004.

Karen WILLIAMS

----
ABRONS FAMILY PRACTICE & URGENT CARE, PA, et al. v. NC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, et al.

427A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 30, 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.

Charles F. Marshall, III, Attorney at Law, Jennifer K. Van Zant, Attorney at Law, Bryan Starrett, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Computer Sciences Corporation.

Mark S. Thomas, Attorney at Law.

Matthew Jordan Cochran, Attorney at Law, Thomas E. Cone, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Curtis B. Venable, Attorney at Law, Stephen J. White, Attorney at Law, for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, et al.

Matthew W. Wolfe, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for American Medical Association, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of May 2017 by American Medical Association, North Carolina Academy of Family Physicians, North Carolina Hospital Association, North Carolina Health Care Facilities Association, and North Carolina Medical Society for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of May 2017."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
EXHIBIT 23











CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





The Board of Directors


Valley Financial Corporation





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-126298 and 333-46488) on Form S-8 and in the registration statements (Nos. 333-156683 and 333-120311) on Form S-3 of Valley Financial Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated March 16, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Valley Financial Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and other comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for the years then ended, which appear in this annual report on Form 10-K of Valley Financial Corporation and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2010.





/s/ Elliott Davis, LLC





Galax, Virginia


March 16, 2011