alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 69962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22869]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Invention; Available 
for Licensing

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is assigned to the United States 
Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and is available 
for licensing by the Department of the Navy. U.S. Patent Application 
Serial No. 11/099,781 entitled ``One-Dimensional Iris Signature for 
Iris Identification'', Navy Case No. 96,365, and any continuations, 
divisionals or re-issues thereof.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the inventions cited should be 
directed to the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, and must include the Navy Case 
number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reza Malek-Madani, Director of 
Research and Scholarship Research Office, U.S. Naval Academy, 589 
McNair Road, MS 10m, Nimitz Room 17, telephone 410-293-2504 or Jane F. 
Kuhl, Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone 202-767-3083. Due to 
temporary U.S. Postal Service delays, please fax 202-404-7920, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c8a3bda0a488bdbca7b8a1a9e6a6baa4e6a6a9beb1e6a5a1a4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b1dac4d9ddf1c4c5dec1d8d09fdfc3dd9fdfd0c7c89fdcd8dd">[email protected]</span></a> or use courier delivery to expedite response.


(Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404)

    Dated: November 14, 2005.
Eric McDonald,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-22869 Filed 11-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 1:06-cv-15116-AKH Document 11-2 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-15032-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### Ashok KUMAR; Kumar Sarojini, Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General,* Respondent.

Nos. 02-70799, [ AXX-XXXXXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 2005.**

Decided March 17, 2005.

Miguel D. Gadda, Law Offices of Miguel D. Gadda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Julia K. Doig, Esq., Francesco Isgro, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil, Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before HAWKINS, MCKEOWN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is substituted for the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS”) as the proper respondent pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2). The INS ceased to exist on March 1, 2003. *See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 848 n. 1 (9th Cir.2003).

**

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Ashok Kumar and his wife, both ethnic Indians and citizens of Fiji, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen their asylum and withholding of removal proceedings.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS,*282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002). Here, the Kumars merely submitted two unsigned, undated letters; two brief news articles regarding the situation in Fiji; and an unsigned, unsworn statement allegedly written by Ashok Kumar. In light of this sparse and unsubstantiated supporting documentation, the BIA did not act “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law” in denying the *815Kumars’ motion. *See Lainez-Ortiz v. INS,*96 F.3d 393, 395-96 (9th Cir.1996). The Kumars failed to support their motion with affidavits or other evidentiary material that was unavailable and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Moreover, the supporting documentation failed to establish prima facie eligibility for the underlying substantive relief requested by the Kumars. *See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft,*340 F.3d 865, 869-70 (9th Cir.2003). Nor, as the Kumars contend, did the BIA err in fading to take administrative notice of the 2000 coup in Fiji sua sponte.

Because we deny the Kumars’ petition for review, we do not reach the issue of whether their children are included in the motion as derivative asylum applicants.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case 1:07-cv-03341-CM-RLE Document 2 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03341-CM-RLE Document 2 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1537 

To ensure America’s law enforcement officers have access to lifesaving equipment needed to defend themselves and civilians from attacks by terrorists 

and violent criminals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 16, 2019 

Mr. TOOMEY (for himself and Mr. ROUNDS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To ensure America’s law enforcement officers have access 

to lifesaving equipment needed to defend themselves and 

civilians from attacks by terrorists and violent criminals. 

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 ‘‘Lifesaving Gear for 

5 Police Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCESS TO 

7 LIFESAVING FEDERAL EQUIPMENT. 

8 (a) UNENFORCEABILITY OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS

9 UNLESS ENACTED INTO LAW.— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1537 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—No regulation, rule, guid2 ance, policy, or recommendations issued on or after 

3 May 15, 2015, that limits the sale or donation of 

4 property of the Federal Government, including ex5 cess property of the Department of Defense, to 

6 State and local agencies for law enforcement activi7 ties (whether pursuant to section 2576a of title 10, 

8 United States Code, or any other provision of law, 

9 or as a condition on the use of Federal funds), shall 

10 have any force or effect after the date of the enact11 ment of this Act unless enacted into law by Con12 gress. 

13 (2) PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO EN14 FORCE REGULATIONS.—No agency or instrumen15 tality of the Federal Government may use any Fed16 eral funds, fees, or resources to implement or carry 

17 out a regulation, rule, guidance, policy, or rec18 ommendation issued as described in subsection (a) 

19 that is not enacted into law by Congress. 

20 (b) RETURN OR REISSUE OF EQUIPMENT RECALLED

21 OR SEIZED PURSUANT TO REGULATIONS.—Any property 

22 recalled or seized on or after May 15, 2015, pursuant to 

23 a regulation, rule, guidance, policy, or recommendation 

24 issued as described in subsection (a), shall be returned, 

25 replaced, or re-issued to the agency from which recalled 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1537 IS

1 or seized, at no cost to such agency, as soon as practicable 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41375

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KYLE J. REID,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 582

Filed: June 23, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. George A. Southworth, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for correction of illegal sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Kyle J. Reid pled guilty to felony injury to a child, Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). The district 

court imposed a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, 

and retained jurisdiction. The district court ultimately relinquished jurisdiction. Reid filed a 

timely Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. Reid 

subsequently filed a second Rule 35 motion for correction of a sentence imposed in an illegal 

manner, which the district court also denied. Reid appeals from the denial of his second Rule 35 

motion.

Reid argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35 motion for 

correction of a sentence imposed in an illegal manner because the court did not conduct a hearing 
2

or otherwise give him an opportunity to respond to the addendum to the presentence 

investigation report (APSI). In his opening brief, Reid acknowledges that he did not have a due 

process right to respond to the APSI. State v. Goodlett, 139 Idaho 262, 265, 77 P.3d 487, 490

(Ct. App. 2003). He also acknowledges that there exists no constitutional requirement of a 

hearing either at the correctional facility or in the trial court prior to the relinquishment of 

jurisdiction. State v. Coassolo, 136 Idaho 138, 141, 30 P.3d 293, 296 (2001). Reid nevertheless 

maintains that the district court erred in failing to hold a hearing at which Reid would have had 

an opportunity to correct any inaccuracies in the APSI. Where the district court was not required 

to hold a hearing or invite Reid’s response to the APSI before relinquishing jurisdiction, Reid has 

failed to establish that the court erred by not doing so.

Accordingly, Reid has failed to establish any error in the district court’s denial of his 

Rule 35 motion. The order of the district court denying Reid’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
#### STATE v. WALSH

No. 53 PC.

Case below: 19 N.C. App. 420.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 1 November 1973.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## News Release

# Marine Accounted For From World War II (Hoffman, J.)

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
EXHIBIT 23

Independent Certified Public Accountants' Consent

The
Board of Directors
HEI, Inc.

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-33322, 33-46928, 33-46929, 333-49489 and
333-40026) on Forms S-8 and S-3 of HEI, Inc. of our report dated October 20, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
HEI, Inc. and subsidiaries, as of August 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended August 31, 2000, which report appears in the August 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-KSB of HEI, Inc.



Minneapolis,
Minnesota
November 29, 2000

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69566-69567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22746]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Reissuance

    Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation 
Intermediary license has been reissued by the Federal Maritime 
Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as 
amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) 
and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of 
Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     License No.            Name/Address             Date reissued
------------------------------------------------------------------------
004286NF.............  Joseph Esposito, dba   September 25, 2005.
                        Mondo Comm.,
                        International Ltd.,
                        17 Main Street,
                        Bloomingdale, NJ
                        07403..
------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 69567]]

    Dated: November 10, 2005.
Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Complaints and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 05-22746 Filed 11-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                 ----------------------------------------------

       Basic earnings per share                                 Shares
       ------------------------                                 ------
       Basic shares outstanding at March 31, 2001            1,957,350

             Net earnings                  $1,274,011     $.65 per share
       ------------------------            ----------
       Basic shares outstanding             1,957,350


       Diluted earnings per share                               Shares
       --------------------------                               ------

       Basic shares outstanding at March 31, 2001            1,957,350
       Stock Options-common stock equivalents                   78,653
                                                             ---------
       Diluted shares outstanding at March 31,2001           2,036,003

              Net earnings                 $1,274,011     $.63 per share
       --------------------------          ----------
       Diluted shares outstanding           2,036,003

                                      12
#### Alana K. BULLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve YOUNG; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-35733.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*169Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 4, 2005.

Alana K. Bullís, Dupont, WA, pro se.

Shelly M. Kerslake, Esq., Kenyon Law Firm, Issaquah, WA, John Turner Kugler, Esq., Burgess Fitzer P.S., Tacoma, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Alana K. Bullís appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing for failure to state a claim her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that City Council members, the mayor, and the city administrator deprived her of her First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, *Ortez v. Washington County,*88 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir.1996) and a district court’s determination regarding qualified immunity, *Elder v. Holloway,*510 U.S. 510, 516, 114 S.Ct. 1019, 127 L.Ed.2d 344 (1994). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bullís’ action because she failed to allege facts establishing that the defendants violated any federal law by refusing to disclose a document believed to be protected by the work product privilege. *See Ortez,*88 F.3d at 810 (to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that state action deprived her of a federal constitutional or statutory right).

The district court’s September 17, 2004 order denying Bullís’ post-judgment motion for leave to amend her complaint was proper, because Bulks filed a notice of appeal from the judgment dismissing her action on August 25, 2004. *See Moore v. Brewster,*96 F.3d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir.1996) (the filing of a notice of appeal from an appealable order or judgment divests the district court of jurisdiction).

Bulbs’ remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 5234] 

# AGENCY:

Department of State. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 [79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459], Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*], Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999 [64 FR 56014], Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999 [64 FR 57920], as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition, “Masterpieces from an English Country House: The Fitzwilliam Collection,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign lender. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, Virginia, from on or about April 28, 2006, to on or about August 13, 2006, the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, Memphis, Tennessee, from on or about September 15, 2006, to on or about December 3, 2006, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, such as a list of exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, 202/453-8052, and the address is United States Department of State, SA-44, Room 700, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547-0001. 

Dated: November 15, 2005. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 05-23110 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
Case 1:06-cv-15118-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Argued and submitted August 27, 1998,

reversed and remanded April 14, 1999

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Appellant, v.*PHUNTSOK HGAWANG LHASAWA, *Respondent.*

(9702-41629; CA A97609)

979 P2d 774

Robert M. Atkinson, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General. With him on the reply brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

Samuel C. Kauffman argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before De Muniz, Presiding Judge, and Deits, Chief Judge, and Haselton, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*668PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with the crime of prostitution, ORS 167.007, after being arrested for that crime within a designated “prostitution free zone” within the City of Portland. At the time of the arrest, defendant was issued a 90-day exclusion order pursuant to a city ordinance. Defendant moved to dismiss the criminal charge on the ground that he had been put in jeopardy twice for the same offense, in violation of the state and federal constitutions, because the exclusion pursuant to the city ordinance constituted “punishment” for purposes of double jeopardy analysis. The trial court dismissed the indictment on the ground that the exclusion was “punishment.”

In *State v. James,*159 Or App 502, 978 P2d 415 (1999), we concluded that civil exclusion from a designated drug free zone, followed by prosecution for a drug crime committed in the zone that provided the basis for the exclusion, did not implicate double jeopardy concerns. The exclusion ordinances pertaining to prostitution free zones are virtually identical to those at issue in *James.*For the reasons set forth in *James,*we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the accusatory instrument.

Reversed and remanded.