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 the Interior

###### National Park Service 

# AGENCY:

National Park Service, Department of the Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Colorado River Management Plan, Grand Canyon National Park. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to subsection 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. subsection 4332 (2)(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Colorado River Management Plan, Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon, Arizona. The FEIS describes and analyzes the environmental impacts of several alternatives, including a modified preferred alternative, for future management of public use of the Colorado River through Grand Canyon National Park, including the Lower Gorge. The analysis includes both commercial and non-commercial uses. The FEIS incorporates changes based on comments on the Draft EIS, and includes the responses to public comments. 

# DATES:

The National Park Service will execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days following publication by the Environmental Protection Agency of the Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

# ADDRESSES:

                        Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement are available online at                         *www.nps.gov/​grca/​crmp*                         or from the office of the Superintendent, Grand Canyon National Park, P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023. The document is also available on the Internet at:                         *http://planning.nps.gov/​plans.cfm*.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Killeen, Special Assistant, Grand Canyon National Park, 928-638-7885. 

Dated: September 28, 2005. 

Michael D. Snyder, 

Acting Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service. 

[FR Doc. 05-21595 Filed 10-28-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS





I, Albert J. Finch, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of OptimumBank Holdings, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.



|      |                 |  |     |                                          | 
|----- | --------------- |  | --- | ---------------------------------------- | 
|Date: | August 14, 2007 |  | By: | /s/ ALBERTJ. FINCH                       | 
|      |                 |  |     | Albert J. Finch, Chief Executive Officer |
----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  May 7, 2010 | By:    |  /s/ Thalia Gietzen                      |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   |       Thalia Gietzen |   |
|                          |   |       VP of Finance  |   |
|                          |   |                                          |   |
|                          |   |                                          |   |

----
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RICHARD STEVEN FELDSTEIN

No. 743SC189

(Filed 1 May 1974)

Criminal Law § 102— length of jury argument

Defendant is granted a new trial where he was entitled to at least two hours of jury argument by G.S. 84-14, but the trial court limited him to only one hour.

Appeal by defendant from *Cowper, Judge,*at the 7 August 1973 Session of Pitt Superior Court.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 April 1974.

The defendant in this criminal action was charged in two bills of indictment with possession of cocaine and with possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. Policemen, with a valid search warrant, entered the defendant’s unoccupied residence and seized, among other items, 2,914.1 grams of marijuana and two plastic bags containing something less than one gram *447of cocaine. Prior to jury argument and over defendant’s objection, the trial court limited defense counsel and the Solicitor to one hour each for jury argument. From a verdict of guilty as to both charges, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Walter E. Ricks III for the State.*

*Hatch, Little, Bunn, Jones, Few & Berry by David H. Per-mar for defendant appellant.*

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The trial court in the case at bar was in error in limiting the jury arguments to one hour. G.S. 84-14 provides in pertinent-part:

> “ ... In all trials in the superior courts there shall be allowed two addresses to the jury for the State or plaintiff and two for the defendant, except in capital felonies, when there shall be no limit as to number. The judges of the superior court are authorized to limit the time of argument of counsel to the jury on the trial of actions, civil and criminal as follows: To not less than one hour on each side in misdemeanors and appeals from justices of the peace; to not less than two hours on each side in all other civil actions and in felonies less than capital; in capital felonies, the time of argument of counsel may not be limited otherwise than by consent, except that the court may limit the number of those who may address the jury to three counsel on each side. ...”

The language of the statute is clear. Defense counsel was entitled to at least two hours for jury argument in this, a felony case. See *State v. Campbell,*14 N.C. App. 596, 188 S.E. 2d 558 (1972). We, therefore, grant a new trial. Defendant’s other assignments of error need not be discussed as they may not recur on retrial.

New trial.

Judges Moréis and Vaughn concur.
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-162390, 333-120388, 333-136374, 333-140013 and 333-132341) and Form S-8 (No. 333-172426) of the Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended June 30, 2011 (the “Annual Report”), of Cubic Energy, Inc., which Annual Report makes reference to our firm and our report dated September 13, 2011 filed therewith evaluating Cubic Energy, Inc.’s oil and gas reserves effective July 1, 2011.

 
|                      | Cambrian   Consultants America, Inc. |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                      |                                      |
| Dallas,   Texas           |                                      |
|                      |                                      |
| September 27,   2011 | By:                                       | /s/   Patrick H. Lowry |
|                      |                                      | Patrick   H. Lowry |
|                      |                                      | Director   — Dallas Consulting |

 

----
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Richard Weber

*Thomas Ullman,*public defender, in support of the petition.

*Rita M. Shair,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided June 4, 1993

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 58 (AC 11502), is denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.2C


                       CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS
                                       OF
                                   XICOR INC.

                          EFFECTIVE AS OF MAY 30, 2000

      The undersigned, being the Secretary of Xicor Inc., hereby certifies that:
(i) effective as of the date set forth above, pursuant to resolutions by the
Board of Directors dated May 30, 2000, Article II of the Bylaws of Xicor Inc.
was amended as follows: the former Section 7 was deleted and the former Section
8 and Section 9, respectively, were renumbered Section 7 and Section 8,
respectively, as follows:

"Section 6   Chairman of the Board

      The chairman of the board, if there shall be such an officer, shall, if
present, preside at meetings of the board of directors and exercise such other
powers and perform such other duties as may from time to time be assigned to him
by the board of directors or as may be prescribed by these bylaws. If there is
no chairman of the board, then the chief executive officer of the corporation
shall have the powers and duties prescribed herein.

Section 7   Chief Executive Officer

      Subject to such supervisory powers, if any, as may be given by the board
of directors to the chairman of the board, if there be such an officer, the
chief executive officer of the corporation shall, subject always to the control
of the board of directors, have general supervision, oversight, direction and
control of the business of the corporation, as well as such other
responsibilities as are delegated to him or her by the Board of Directors. He or
she shall preside at all meetings of the shareholders and, in the absence or
non-existence of a chairman of the board, at all meetings of the board of
directors.

Section 8   Chief Operating Officer

      Subject to such supervisory powers, if any, as may be given by the board
of directors to the chairman of the board or the chief executive officer, if
there be either such officer, the chief operating officer of the corporation
shall, subject always to the control of the board of directors, have general
responsibility for direction of the operations of the corporation, as well as
such other responsibilities as are delegated to him or her by the Board of
Directors."


                                        /s/  JULIUS BLANK
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Julius Blank, Secretary
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5267 

To amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 to accelerate 

the increase in the amount of Gulf of Mexico oil and gas lease revenues 

that is shared with States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2010 

Mr. CAO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 

to accelerate the increase in the amount of Gulf of Mexico oil and gas lease revenues that is shared with States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ACCELERATION OF INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF 

4 GULF OF MEXICO OIL AND GAS LEASE REVE5 NUES SHARED WITH STATES. 

6 The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (di7 vision C of Public Law 109–432; 43 U.S.C. 1331 note) 

8 is amended— 

9 (1) in section 102(9)(A)— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5267 IH

1 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘2016’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘2010’’; and 

3 (B) in clause (ii)— 

4 (i) by striking ‘‘2017’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘2011’’; and 

6 (ii) by striking ‘‘2016’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘2010’’; and 

8 (2) in section 105-— 

9 (A) in paragraph (1)— 

10 (i) in the paragraph heading, by strik11 ing ‘‘2016’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’; and 

12 (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking 

13 ‘‘2016’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’; and 

14 (B) in paragraph (2)— 

15 (i) in the paragraph heading, by strik16 ing ‘‘2017’’ and inserting ‘‘2011’’; and 

17 (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking 

18 ‘‘2017’’ and inserting ‘‘2011’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 516 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 516

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 2105 East Cook Street in Springfield, Illinois, as the ``Colonel 
              John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 14, 2009

Mr. Hare (for himself, Mr. Rush, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, 
    Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Roskam, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Bean, Ms. 
 Schakowsky, Mr. Kirk, Mrs. Halvorson, Mr. Costello, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. 
  Foster, Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Schock, and Mr. 
   Shimkus) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 2105 East Cook Street in Springfield, Illinois, as the ``Colonel 
              John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. COLONEL JOHN H. WILSON, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2105 East Cook Street in Springfield, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Colonel 
John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
<Page>

                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN



             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
reports (and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of
this Registration Statement File No. 333-69491 for Hartford Life and Annuity
Insurance Company Separate Account Three on Form N-4.

Hartford, Connecticut                                /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 8, 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-41416

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE GUTIERREZ-LANDEROS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-70-1

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Jose Gutierrez-Landeros pleaded guilty to one count of possession with

intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. After determining

that Gutierrez-Landeros was subject to the career offender enhancements of

the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court downwardly departed and

sentenced him to 168 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised

release. Gutierrez-Landeros appeals, arguing that his prior 1988 and 1995

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 22, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-41416 Document: 00512315872 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2013
No. 12-41416

drug conspiracy convictions do not constitute controlled substance offenses for

purposes of the career offender provisions of U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2.

Specifically, he contends that because a conviction for conspiracy under federal

statutory conspiracy law does not require proof of an overt act, it does not meet

the generic definition of conspiracy and does not constitute a controlled

substance offense for purposes of §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2.

As Gutierrez-Landeros concedes, we rejected materially

indistinguishable arguments in United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d

751, 754 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2044 (2013). Although

Rodriguez-Escareno involved the definition of a drug trafficking offense under

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, we discern no reason that its analysis should not apply to the

nearly identical definition of a controlled substance offense for purposes of §

4B1.1. See, e.g., United States v. Henao-Melo, 591 F.3d 798, 803 & n.7 (5th Cir.

2009) (comparing the two definitions and noting that, given their similarities,

this court cites decisions interpreting them interchangeably).

In light of the foregoing, Gutierrez-Landeros’s unopposed motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-41416 Document: 00512315872 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2013
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Douglas L. Schmick, Chief Executive Officer, in connection with the
Report on Form 10-Q of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2007 (the Report), hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ DOUGLAS L. SCHMICK 
|Douglas L. Schmick     
|Chief Executive Officer

Dated: November 8, 2007
#### RUSSELL JONES, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 6980

January 21, 1974

518 P.2d 164

*Rodlin Goff,*State Public Defender, and *Gary A. Sheerin,*Deputy State Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert C. Manley,*District Attorney, and *Gregory D. Corn,*Deputy District Attorney, Elko County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant stands convicted of three counts of selling or disposing of hashish in violation of NRS 453.030.

His foremost assignment of error is that the district court improperly denied a motion for continuance, made the morning trial began. That motion was grounded on the desire of *46appellant’s private defense counsel, who had been substituted for court-appointed counsel a few days before, to have more time to prepare. In the facts of this case, we find no error. See: Polito v. State, 71 Nev. 135, 282 P.2d 801 (1955).

A subsidiary assignment of error seems to be that a motion to disqualify the trial judge, made the morning trial begán and denied as untimely, would have become timely if the court had not erroneously denied appellant’s motion for continuance. Our disposition of appellant’s first point disposes of this one also.

Other assignments of error have been considered, and are deemed equally without merit.

Affirmed.