alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59278-59279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20213]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 05-2507; MB Docket No.05-130, RM-11216, RM-11265*]


Radio Broadcasting Service; Cheyenne and Thomas, OK

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the request of Roger Mills County 
Broadcasting in its counterproposal to a petition for rulemaking by 
Charles Crawford, allots Channel 247C3 at Cheyenne, Oklahoma, as the 
community's first local aural transmission service. See 70 FR 19403, 
published April 13, 2005. See also Public Notice, Report No. 2723, RM-
11265*, issued July 29, 2005. Channel 247C3 can be allotted to Cheyenne 
in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation 
requirements. The reference coordinates for Channel 247C3 at Cheyenne 
are 35-37-25 North Latitude and 99-40-11 West Longitude with a site 
restriction of 1.1 kilometers (0.7 miles) north of Cheyenne. A filing 
window for Channel 247C3 at Cheyenne, Oklahoma will not be opened at 
this time. Instead, the issue of opening a filing window for this

[[Page 59279]]

channel will be addressed by the Commission in a subsequent order.

DATES: Effective November 10, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen McLean, Media Bureau, (202) 418-
2738.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MB Docket No. 05-130, adopted September 23, 2005, and 
released September 26, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision 
is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours 
at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth 
Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of 
this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room 
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and 
Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Radio broadcasting.

0
Accordingly, FCC amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.


Sec.  73.202  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Oklahoma, is 
amended by adding Cheyenne, Channel 247C3.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 05-20213 Filed 10-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58389-58390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20024]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


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, 2009.
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Waiver/Remission of Indebtedness 
Application; DD Form 2789; OMB Control Number 0730--0009.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 8,400.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 8,400.
    Average Burden per Response: 1.25 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 10,500.
    Needs and Uses: Used by current or former DoD civilian employees or 
military members to request waiver or remission of an indebtedness owed 
to the Department of Defense. Under 5 U.S.C. 5584, 10 U.S.C. 2774, and 
32 U.S.C. 716, certain debts arising out of erroneous payments may be 
waived. Under 10 U.S.C. 4837, 10 U.S.C. 6161, and 10 U.S.C. 9837, 
certain debts may be remitted. Information obtained through the DD Form 
1789 is used in adjudicating the request for waiver or remission. 
Remissions apply only to active duty military members, and thus are not 
covered under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: Quarterly.
    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.


[[Page 58390]]


    Dated: September 27, 2005.
Patricia L. Toppings
Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 05-20024 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
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 Form 10-Q of Madison Avenue Holdings, Inc. (the “Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: May 10, 2011
By:
/s/ Alex KamAlex KamChief Executive Officer and President(principal executive officer)




Date: May 10, 2011
By:
/s/ Pan-Rong LiuPan-Rong LiuChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Madison Avenue Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Madison Avenue Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered October 16, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00455
- CR CHLOE A. MENAGER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. F14
- 00143
- X



### O RDER The Court is in receipt of the Anders brief filed by counsel. Although the brief references that the case proceeded to trial on appellant’s guilty plea to the jury, the brief does not discuss voir dire and why no arguable issues can be raised from voir dire. The brief also asserts that because the plea was to a jury, issues of article 26.13 of the code of criminal procedure are “not germane” to appellant’s trial or any potential appeal. However, the admonishments required by article 26.13 appl y to guilty pleas, regardless of whether there is a plea agreement , and regardless of whether the plea is to the court or a jury

. See VanNortrick v. State , 227 S.W.3d 706, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Anderson v. State , 182 S.W .3d 914, 917

– 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)); Burnett v. State , 88 S.W.3d 633, 634 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Therefore, we conclude the brief filed by counsel does not comply with the requirements of Anders v. California

.Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s Octo ber 7 , 2014 motion to extend time to file the

brief. W e STRIKE the Anders brief filed on October 12 , 2014 . We DENY as moot the motion to withdraw as counsel filed with the brief

. We ORDER counsel to file, within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, eit her a brief raising issues on the merits or an amended Anders brief that addresses the issues identified above and all remaining portions of the proceedings not previously addressed.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmiss ion, to Niles Illich and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO**

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

**SECTION 906      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                             |                                                              |                                       |
|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                             | WILSHIRE                BANCORP, INC.                             |
|                                        |                                                         |                                  |
| Date:              November              9, 2006 | By:                                                     | /s/              Soo              Bong Min |
|                                             | Soo                Bong MinChief                Executive Officer |
|                                             |                                                                   |

|                                             |                                                              |                          |
|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| Date:              November              9, 2006 | By:                                                     | /s/              Brian E. Cho |
|                                             | Brian                E. ChoChief                Financial Officer |
|                                             |                                                                   |

----
Exhibit
32. Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Atlantic


Coast
Federal Corporation Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002





Robert J.
Larison, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas B. Wagers, Sr.,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Atlantic Coast Federal
Corporation (the “Company”), each certify in their capacity as an officer of the
Company that they have reviewed the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 and that to the best of their
knowledge:





1.
            the
      report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) 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.





The
purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section
1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





Date:
November 16, 2009





/s/ Robert J. Larison, Jr.
                    
                    /s/
      Thomas B. Wagers, Sr.Robert
      J. Larison, Jr.
                    
                    Thomas
      B. Wagers, Sr.President and
                    
                    Senior
      Vice President andChief
      Executive Officer
                    
                    Chief
      Financial
Officer
WITHERSPOON v. The STATE.

S18A0887

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: August 20, 2018

Rufus Charles Witherspoon, GDC# 614079, Dodge State Prison, PO Box 276, Chester, Georgia 31012, for Appellant.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Jacquelyn Lee Johnson, District Attorney, BRUNSWICK JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, P.O. Box 369, Woodbine, Georgia 31569, Andrew J. Ekonomou, BRUNSWICK JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Glynn County Courthouse, 701 H Street, Box 301, Brunswick, Georgia 31520, for Appellee.

Peterson, Justice.

*513**306Rufus Charles Witherspoon appeals pro se from the denial of his motions in arrest of judgment, which he filed approximately 27 years after his convictions. Because the trial court correctly concluded that Witherspoon's motions were untimely, we affirm.

In 1990, a jury found Witherspoon guilty of two counts of felony murder and other crimes in relation to the shooting death of a single **307victim. Witherspoon appealed, and we affirmed his convictions. See *Witherspoon v. State*, 262 Ga. 2, 412 S.E.2d 829 (1992). Witherspoon later filed several motions challenging his convictions, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in sentencing him on both felony murder counts and that the error subjected him to double jeopardy. The trial court dismissed his motions for lack of jurisdiction, but vacated the sentence imposed on one felony murder count.1 In November 2017, Witherspoon filed two motions in arrest of judgment, again raising claims related to the trial court's initial failure to merge the two felony murder counts. The trial court denied the motions as untimely, and this appeal ensued.

We do not reach the merits of Witherspoon's arguments on appeal, because the untimeliness of his motions precluded any relief. OCGA § 17-9-61 (b) requires that a motion in arrest of judgment "be made during the term in which the judgment was obtained." Witherspoon's convictions were entered on November 28, 1990, during the October term of the Appling County Superior Court that expired in February 1991. See OCGA § 15-6-3 (7) (A). Witherspoon filed his motions in November 2017, almost 27 years after the expiration of the term in which he was convicted. Because Witherspoon's motions were untimely, the trial court lacked authority to grant any relief, and it properly disposed of his motions on this basis. See *Brooks v. State*, 301 Ga. 748, 752 (2), 804 S.E.2d 1 (2017) (providing that although a trial court should "dismiss" rather than "deny" a motion it lacks jurisdiction to consider, we will vacate only when the court considers the merits of that motion). Therefore, we affirm.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Hines, C.J., Melton, P.J., Benham, Hunstein, Nahmias, Blackwell, and Boggs, JJ., concur.

1

Witherspoon filed a discretionary application from the dismissal of one of those motions, and we dismissed that application.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 3, 2014

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D13-32 79

Lower Tribunal No. 90- 14763-A

________________



### Waymon Bishop,

Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Mary Pooler, Judge.

Waymon Bishop, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jay E. Silver, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before SHEPHERD, C.J., and LAGOA and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.Waymon Bishop appeals the trial court’s November 18, 2013 order denying

his motion to clarify his sentences in lower tribunal case number 90-14763-A. 1

This court has considered Bishop’s motion as filed pursuant to Florida Rule of

Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).

The order on review states, in pertinent part, “[I]n 2001, pursuant to the

Jimmy Ryce act [sic] the defendant was found to be a sexual predator” in lower

tribunal case number 01-10787.

The State concedes that it dismissed its petition to have Bishop declared a

sexual predator under the Jimmy Ryce Act in lower tribunal case number 01-

10787. 2

Accordingly, we remand for the limited purpose of striking the sexual

predator language from the trial court’s November 18, 2013 order. 3

Remanded with directions.

1 In lower tribunal case number 90-14763-A, Bishop was sentenced to ten years in

prison after pleading guilty to kidnapping, false imprisonment, and seven counts of

sexual battery.

2 The State had sought to have Bishop committed under the Jimmy Ryce Act as a

sexually violent predator in lower tribunal case number 01-10787. According to

the State, however, after Bishop received a life sentence in an unrelated case

(lower tribunal case number 98-41196), the State dismissed its Jimmy Ryce

Petition. Bishop’s life sentence in lower tribunal case number 98-41196 was

subsequently reduced to twenty years.

3 We note that Bishop’s convictions may qualify him as a “sexual offender” under

section 943.0435, Florida Statutes; that issue, however, is not before us.

2
STATE v. Marcus Reymond ROBINSON

411A94-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 20, 2018

Robert T. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, William P. Hart, Sr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, Danielle Marquis Elder, Robert C. Montgomery, Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, for State of NC.

G. Robert Hicks, III, Assistant District Attorney, for State.

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Jay H. Ferguson, Cassandra Stubbs, D. Clark Smith, Jr., Donald H. Beskind, Attorneys at Law, Kenneth J. Rose, David Weiss, Brian W. Stull, for Robinson, Marcus Reymond.

Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, for State.

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

Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Council of Churches.

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

Burton Craige, Narendra K. Ghosh, James E. Williams, Jr., Attorneys at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Jeffrey Gerrish, James P. Cooney, III, Gregory B. Craig, Attorneys at Law, for Former Senior U.S. Military Officials.

John R. Mills, Attorney at Law, for Experts in Law and Implicit Bias.

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney at Law, 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, Irving Joyner, Attorneys at Law, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP.

Carlos E. Mahoney, Attorney at Law, Jin Hee Lee, W. Kerrel Murray, Attorneys at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Jeremy M. Falcone, Attorney at Law, for Former State and Federal Prosecutors.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of July 2018 by Former State and Federal Prosecutors to admit Paul F. Khoury Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of July 2018."
---

---

Exhibit 4.1

# ENGLISH SUMMARY OF THE
LEASE AGREEMENT(ORIGINAL LANGUAGE  HEBREW)

BY AND BETWEEN

# DELEK REAL ESTATE LTD.

AND

# SHAGRIR (1985) LTD.

February 23, 1998
(as amended on March 5, 2003)

(the
Agreement)

|Extended Term: 
Premises: 
                         
Landlord: 
Tenant: 
Lease Payments (Monthly):
Termination Provisions: | April 1, 2005 - March 31, 2007 ("Term").
9 Bet Lechem Rd, Jerusalem, Israel, at Block
30188, Plot 15 (the "Property")
Delek Real Estate Ltd. (the "Landlord").
Shagrir (1985) Ltd.
An amount in NIS equal to $2,800.
Landlord shall have the right to terminate the
Agreement by giving six months advanced notice,
subject to certain conditions.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Comments:

| |  | In
June 2005, this Agreement was assigned by Shagrir (1985) Ltd. to Shagrir Motor Vehicle
Systems Ltd.
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
#### STATE ex rel. James BOURGEOIS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2061.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Bourgeois, James;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 00-836; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-6S9.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.
STATE of North Carolina v. Dwayne Hoyte DOCKERY

No. 463P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Dwayne H. Dockery, for Dockery, Dwayne Hoyte.

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 21st of December 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Buncombe County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of December 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
Table of Contents
     **EXHIBIT 4.22**

**Exhibit 4.22 English Language Summary**

*Supply and Services Agreement for the Expansion of the GSM network of Telemig S.A.(the “Agreement”)*

**Parties**: Telemig Celular S.A. (“Telemig”), on the one side, and Ericsson Telecomunicações S.A., Ericsson Serviços de Telecomunicações Ltda., Ericsson Gestão e Serviços deTelecomunicações Ltda. (collectively, “Ericsson”), on the other side. 

**Date**: April 25, 2008. 

**Purpose**: Ericsson shall provide services and supply equipment to Telemig in order to expand Telemig’s GSM network. 

**Amount**: R$78,134,836.85. The amount may vary up to 7% more or less of this value, according to Telemig’s purchase orders pursuant to the Agreement. 

**Payment**: For most items under the Agreement, the time of payment is determined according to each purchase order placed by Telemig. A certain amount is due upon delivery and the remaining portion of the price is due whenever the equipment isactivated, the software is functional, and/or when the equipment is finally deemed to be fully operational. 

**Expiration**: April 2009. 

**Termination**: Telemig is entitled to terminate the Agreement in case Ericsson breaches the Agreement, or files for bankruptcy or insolvency relief, or if the scheduled completion is materially delayed. Ericsson is entitled to terminate theAgreement if Telemig files for bankruptcy or insolvency relief, or if it delays payment without cause for more than 60 days.
In the MATTER OF: A.B.C.

No. COA18-492

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 20, 2018

VACATED. REMANDED.
Rebecca B. EVERETT and Simon J. Everett, Co-administrators of the Estate of Simon T. Everett, Plaintiffs, v. DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC; and FDB, LLC, Defendants.

No. COA18-159

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 6, 2018

REVERSED IN PART. AFFIRMED IN PART.