alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CHARLES ANDREW FORBES, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 11787

January 3, 1980

604 P.2d 799

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *Peter J. Christian-sen,*Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Richard H. Bryan,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert J. Miller,*District Attorney, and *James Tufteland,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant, while in custody pending the resolution of a sexual assault charge, escaped from the Southern Nevada Memorial Hospital. Later that same night he was re-arrested and charged with escape (NRS 212.090). Thereafter, appellant pled guilty to the sexual assault charge and was sentenced to 20 years in the Nevada State Prison. Subsequent to the guilty plea, appellant was convicted of escape and, under the impression that NRS 176.035(2)1 was controlling, the district judge proceeded to sentence appellant to two years in the Nevada State Prison, to be served *consecutively*to the sentence previously *18imposed. On appeal, appellant contends, and respondent concedes, *see*LaFon v. State, 95 Nev. 762, 601 P.2d 1201 (1979), that all parties present at the second sentencing proceeded under a mistake of law regarding the requirements of sentencing pursuant to NRS 176.035. We agree.-

Appellant was not under a sentence of imprisonment at the time of his escape. Nevertheless, at the time of sentencing for the escape conviction, the trial court acted under the misconception that the aforementioned statute required the imposition of a sentence consecutive to that previously imposed in the companion case. Accordingly, this case shall be remanded to the district court so that the trial judge may resentence appellant in accordance with its discretionary power pursuant to NRS 176.035(1).2

1

 NRS 176.035(2) requires that:

> “Whenever a person under sentence of imprisonment commits another crime constituting a felony and is sentenced to another term of imprisonment for such felony, such latter term shall not begin until the expiration of all prior terms.”

2

NRS 176.035(1) provides in relevant part:

> “Except as provided in subsection 2, whenever a person is convicted of two or more offenses, and sentence has been pronounced for one offense, the court in imposing any subsequent sentence may, in its discretion, provide that the sentences subsequently pronounced shall run either concurrently or consecutively with the sentence first imposed.”
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.1

March 28, 2002

David D'Arcangelo, Chairman
EntrePort Corportation
5937 Darwin Court, Suite 109
Carlsbad, CA 92008


David:

Please accept my resignation from the board of directors of EntrePort
Corporation effective March 25, 2002.

Regards,


/s/ Bruce Peterson
------------------
Minneapolis, Minnesota
<PAGE>


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the use in the Statement of Additional Information
constituting part of this Post-Effective Amendment No. 35 to Registration
Statement File No. 2-74667 on Form N-4 (the "Registration Statement") of (1) our
report dated February 6, 2002 relating to the financial statements of Separate
Account No. 301 of The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States for
the year ended December 31, 2001, and (2) our report dated February 6, 2002
relating to the consolidated financial statements of The Equitable Life
Assurance Society of the United States for the year ended December 31, 2001. We
also consent to the reference to us under the headings "About our independent
accountants" in the Prospectus and "Custodian and Independent Accountants" in
the Statement of Additional Information.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
April 8, 2002
**Exhibit 31.2**
CERTIFICATION
     I, Kevin A. Landgraver, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CollegiateFunding Services, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: August 20, 2004
By: /s/ Kevin A. Landgraver
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of OptimumBank Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard L. Browdy,
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

2.       To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
         of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the
         report.





Date:  May 14, 2004             By:  /s/Richard L. Browdy
       -------------                 -------------------------------------------
                                     Richard L. Browdy, Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21389]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 61750]]



MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

5 CFR Part 1201


Filing of Constructive Removal Complaints by Administrative Law 
Judges; Reopening of the Comment Period

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or ``the Board'') is 
reopening the comment period for a proposed rule published in the 
Federal Register on August 16, 2005 (70 FR 48081). The proposed rule 
revised 5 CFR 1201.142 and concerned the filing of constructive removal 
complaints by administrative law judges. The Board is reopening the 
comment period because of the widespread disruption caused by 
hurricanes Rita and Katrina.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before November 25, 
2005.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to the Office of Clerk of the 
Board, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20419; (202) 653-7200; fax: (202) 653-7130; or e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#620f111200220f1112004c050d14"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84e9f7f4e6c4e9f7f4e6aae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bentley Roberts, Clerk of the Board, 
Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20419; (202) 653-7200; fax: (202) 653-7130; or e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e031d1e0c2e031d1e0c40090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5d8c6c5d7f5d8c6c5d79bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board's original notice of the proposed 
rule (70 FR 48081) contains the relevant supplementary information.

List of Subjects in Part 1201

    Administrative personnel, Actions against administrative law 
judges, Actions filed by administrative law judges.

Bentley M. Roberts,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05-21389 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5227 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to require delivery by United States 

mail of any transportation security card issued to an individual who 

resides in a remote location. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2010 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to require delivery 

by United States mail of any transportation security 

card issued to an individual who resides in a remote 

location. 

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 ‘‘TWIC Delivery Act 

5 of 2010’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5227 IH

1 SEC. 2. DELIVERY OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CARDS 

2 TO INDIVIDUALS WHO RESIDE IN REMOTE 

3 LOCATIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 70105(b) of title 46, 

5 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(3) In the case of a transportation security card 

8 issued under this section to an individual who resides in 

9 a location where the nearest transportation security card 

10 enrollment center is not accessible by a State or Federal 

11 road or is more than 100 miles from the location, the Sec12 retary shall deliver the card to the individual by United 

13 States mail.’’. 

14 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by sub15 section (a) shall apply to a transportation security card 

16 issued after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1****CEO CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC §1350, as adopted), LowellR. Selvin, the Chief Executive Officer of PlanetOut Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, tothe best of his knowledge:**1. **The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, and to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and**2.**The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.     **In Witness Whereof**, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 10thday of May 2006.       /s/ Lowell R. Selvin Lowell R. Selvin    Chief Executive Officer  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is notbeing filed as part of this report. A signed original of this written statement required by Section906 has been provided to PlanetOut Inc. and will be retained by PlanetOut Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**RIVER ROCK ENTERTAINMENT AUTHORITY(A Governmental Instrumentality of the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians)**

**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of River Rock Entertainment Authority (the “Authority”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas Searle, Chief Executive Officer of the Authority, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Authority.

By: /s/ Douglas Searle               Douglas SearleChief Executive OfficerAugust 15, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the River Rock Entertainment Authority and will be retained by the River Rock Entertainment Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 22, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129419 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129419 

 COA: 255126 

Wayne CC: 03-013247

DENNIS LENNELL THOMAS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 14, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

s0315 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 22, 2006 

Clerk
**Important legal notice**

*|*

# 32004D0214

**2004/214/EC: Commission Decision of 3 March 2004 amending Decision 2000/40/EC as regards the period of validity of the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to refrigerators (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2004) 310)***Official Journal L 067 , 05/03/2004 P. 0023 - 0023*

Commission Decision

of 3 March 2004

amending Decision 2000/40/EC as regards the period of validity of the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to refrigerators

(notified under document number C(2004) 310)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2004/214/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 on a revised Community eco-label award scheme(1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) thereof,

After consulting the European Union Eco-labelling Board,

Whereas:

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 provides for the award of an eco-label to a product possessing characteristics, which enable it to contribute significantly to improvements in relation to key environmental aspects and provides that specific eco-label criteria are to be established according to product groups.

(2) Commission Decision 2000/40/EC of 16 December 1999 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to refrigerators(2) will expire on 1 December 2003.

(3) Following the review of that Decision in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000, it is appropriate to prolong the period of validity of those ecological criteria for a period of 12 months, in particular to allow those companies that have been awarded the eco-label to continue using the eco-label at least until the revision of Decision 2000/40/EC is completed.

(4) Decision 2000/40/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the committee set up under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 3 of Decision 2000/40/EC is replaced by the following:

"Article 3

The product group definition and the criteria for the product group shall be valid until 1 December 2004. If, however, by that date a new decision establishing the product group definition and the criteria for this product group has not yet been adopted, that period of validity shall end either on 1 December 2005 or on the date of adoption of the new decision, whichever is sooner."

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 March 2004.

For the Commission

Margot Wallström

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 237, 21.9.2000, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 13, 19.1.2000, p. 22.
#### JAMES B. MOORE, Appellant, v. GEORGE E. MILLER, Nevada State Welfare Administrator; and the NEVADA STATE WELFARE BOARD, Respondents.

No. 7017

March 28, 1974

520 P.2d 612

*123
      *B. Mahlon Brown, III,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City, and *Marilyn V. Romanelli,*Deputy Attorney General, of Las Vegas, for Respondents.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Denied medical assistance under Nevada’s program for aid to the permanently and totally disabled (APTD), appellant petitioned the district court for review. See: NRS 428.270(2) (c). Again denied relief, appellant contends the court erred: (1) in determining that the aforesaid denial of assistance was supported by substantial evidence; (2) “in its [the court’s] support of the Nevada State Welfare Department’s policy of denying APTD benefits to those suffering from alcoholism”; and (3) in ruling appellant had no right to' cross-examine respondents’ medical review team. His counsel also complains of departmental delay in processing appellant’s application, but concedes that delay constitutes no basis for us to order benefits paid.

January 1 of this year, a federal program operating under federal guidelines supplanted Nevada’s APTD program. Respondents’ counsel therefore suggests this appeal is moot, because respondents have no liability for future medical bills *124and, they assert, appellant in fact has no bills for past services. The record does not reflect what bills appellant has heretofore incurred, and therefore does not permit us to say the appeal is totally moot. However, this Opinion obviously can have little value as precedent, and we therefore state our reasons for affirming the district court as briefly as possible.

1. Appellant has leveled no legal attack on respondents’ definitions of “disability,” “permanency,” and “totality.” Applying such definitions, we think the record supports findings that appellant was neither permanently nor totally disabled.

2. The record also justifies rejection of appellant’s contention that respondents pursued a policy of denying benefits to those suffering from alcoholism. Cf. Rosas v. Montgomery, 88 Cal.Rptr. 907 (Cal.App. 1970). We perceive nothing to indicate that the district court found such a policy existed, or that the court “supported” it.

3. On the record, the district court could properly determine that in this case the medical review team had performed a purely adjudicative function, and were not “adverse witnesses.” Cf. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 268 (1970).

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.32

                          DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY

The Human Resources Committee reviews and recommends the compensation for
directors. During 2001 each of the directors who were not employed by the
Company received an annual Board retainer of $30,000, an annual committee
retainer for each committee on which the director served of $5,000 ($6,000 for
chairpersons) and a fee of $1,500 for each special Board meeting attended and
$1,000 for each special committee meeting attended. Non-employee directors may
defer cash compensation into an unfunded deferred compensation plan until their
retirement or resignation from the Board. Currently none of the directors
participates in the deferred compensation plan.

In addition, non-employee directors receive a grant of a non-qualified stock
option to purchase 10,000 shares of common stock under the 1997 Omnibus Stock
Option and Incentive Plan upon their election to the Board, at an exercise
price equal to the closing price on the date prior to the date of the grant,
which becomes exercisable in four equal annual installments, and an annual
grant of a non-qualified stock option to purchase 7,000 shares of common stock
under the 1997 Omnibus Stock Option and Incentive Plan, at an exercise price
equal to the closing price on the date prior to the date of the grant, which is
immediately exercisable.

Directors who are employed by the Company do not receive compensation for their
service as directors. All directors are reimbursed for expenses incurred in
attending meetings.