alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 208 (Monday, October 29, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61115-61116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5339]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DoD-2007-DARS-0113]


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 
28, 2007.
    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement (DFARS) Part 244, Subcontracting Policies and Procedures; 
OMB Control Number 0704-0253.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 90.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 90.
    Average Burden per Response: 16 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 1,440.
    Needs and Uses: Administrative contracting officers use this 
information in making decisions to grant, withhold, or withdraw 
purchasing system approval at the conclusion of a purchasing system 
review. Withdrawal of purchasing system approval would necessitate 
Government consent to individual subcontracts.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Hillary Jaffe.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Jaffe at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any

[[Page 61116]]

personal identifiers or contact information.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 1100, Arlington, VA 22209-
2133.

    Dated: October 22, 2007.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 07-5339 Filed 10-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00013-CR

ALICIA LEWIS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 0911956 CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Alicia Lewis was found to be in contempt of court and sentenced to 180 days in 

jail. She appealed. The Clerk of this Court warned Lewis that the appeal was subject to 

dismissal because there is no right of appeal from an order of contempt. See Ex parte 

Eureste, 725 S.W.2d, 214, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Ex parte Moorehouse, 614 S.W.2d 

450, 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Hubbard v. State, 265 S.W.3d 434, 435 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). The Clerk also warned Lewis that unless a response 

was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the appeal would be dismissed.
Lewis v. State Page 2

Counsel for Lewis responded that Lewis was pursuing a writ of habeas corpus 

and that a family member or friend had filed the notice of appeal. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed February 10, 2010

Do not publish 

[CR25]
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.3
 GRACECHURCH RECEIVABLES TRUSTEE LIMITED
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, and all reports on
Form 6-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
Gracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
reports is included in these reports;4.
    
    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and
based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required
under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the
servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and5.
    
    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicers compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement.
 Name:    Jonathon William Albright
Title:       Director
Date:       June 27, 2007
 - 28 -
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

November 12, 2019

ERRATA

______________________

Appeal Nos. 2018-2082, 2018-2083, 2018-2084

BEDGEAR, LLC,

Appellant

v.

FREDMAN BROS. FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

Decided: November 7, 2019

Nonprecedential Opinion

_______________________

Please make the following change:

On page 10, lines 3–4, replace “PTO Director/UnderSecretary of Commerce” with “Secretary of Commerce.”
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R OG E L I O G OME Z VI VA NC O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70160 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 528- 262 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R oge l i o G om e z V i vanc o, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons pr o s e f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea lfr om an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n f in d in g h im in e lig ib le f

o rc an c e llatio n o f

r e m o v a l. We h av e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We r e v i e w d e n o v o qu e s t i o n s o f l aw, 

# FI LED JU N 02 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70160 2 V a s q u ez - Za v a la v . A s h c r o ft , 324 F . 3d 1105, 1107 ( 9th C i r . 2003) , and w e de nythe p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T he a ge nc ypr ope r l yc onc l ude d thatG om e z V i vanc o w a s i ne l i gi bl e f or cancel l at i on of re m ov albecause hi s c on vi ct i on un der C al . P enalC od e § 12 02 5(a) c o n s titu te s af

ir e arm s o f

f e n s e f o rth e p u rp o s e s o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9a(b)( 1)(C ); Va le r i o - O c h o a v . I NS , 24 1 F . 3d10 92 , 10 95 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e e x p u n g e m e n t o f th e c o n v ic tio n p u r s u an t to C a l. P e n a l C o d e § 1 2 0 3 .4 d idn o t e lim in ate th e im m ig r atio n c o n s e qu e n c e s o f th e c o n v ic tio n . See Ra m i rez - Ca s tr o v . I

NS , 2 8 7 F .3 d1 1 7 2 , 1 1 7 4 - 7 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.3
 GRACECHURCH RECEIVABLES TRUSTEE LIMITED
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, and all reports on
Form 6-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
Gracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
reports is included in these reports;4.
    
    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and
based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required
under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the
servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and5.
    
    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicers compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement.
 By: /s/ Jonathon William AlbrightName:
    
    Jonathon William AlbrightTitle:
    
    DirectorDate:
    
    June 27, 2007
 - 28 -
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JAMES DEMMONS, a.k.a. James

Anderson, a.k.a. Craig, A.k.a. James

Demmond, a.k.a. Rupert Demmons, a.k.a.

James Hughes, a.k.a. James David Hughes,

a.k.a. James Paul Rubert, a.k.a. James

David Summers, a.k.a. Van Demmons,

a.k.a. Van Dillion, a.k.a. James Van

Huges, a.k.a. Van Wright, a.k.a. Craig

Wright, a.k.a. James Wright,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-50434

D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00599-GPS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2014** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

FILED

FEB 26 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
James Demmons appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion

for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to

modify a sentence under section 3582, see United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728,

730 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

Demmons contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under the Fair

Sentencing Act of 2010 and subsequent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. 

However, as Demmons concedes, he was sentenced as a career offender pursuant

to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Therefore, his sentence was not based on a Guidelines range

that has been lowered, and the district court lacked authority to reduce his

sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731-32. Because

Demmons cannot satisfy the first prong of section 3582(c)(2), we need not

consider his arguments related to his eligibility for a sentence modification under

the second prong of section 3582(c)(2), including the application of U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10. 

Demmons also contends that the denial of a sentence modification based on

the Fair Sentencing Act violated his right to equal protection of the law. As he

concedes, this contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Baptist, 646 F.3d

1225, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

2 12-50434
#### STATE v. HUNTLEY

No. 17 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 749.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 February 1978.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TAMARA E. MARKS,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv185/RS-EMT

AT&T,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Report of Mediation (Doc. 23). Pursuant to Local Rule 16.2(D),

it is ordered:

1. This case is dismissed from the active docket of the court.

2. In the event that the settlement is not consummated, the court reserves

jurisdiction, upon motion filed by any party within sixty days of the date of this Order, to

amend or vacate and set aside this Order and reinstate the case.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file of this case for administrative

purposes, and upon the expiration of sixty days without activity, the clerk is directed to

close the case in its entirety for all purposes.

ORDERED on December 28, 2010. 

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EXHIBIT 31.2  I, Ted R. Sharp, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company; 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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. 4. Little Squaw Gold Mining Company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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company 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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, 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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's most recent fiscal quarter (Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's internal control over financial reporting; and 1. Little Squaw Gold Mining Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Little Squaw Gold Mining Companys auditors and the audit committee of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's board of directors: 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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company'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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Companys internal control over financial reporting.  Date: August 14, 2006  By   /s/ Ted R. Sharp Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 15144

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11

- cr
- 00234

- CAP

- AJB

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus SOLOMON MANASSEH MUSTAFA, a.k.a. G, a.k.a. J, a.k.a. Black,
Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States D istrict Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (M arch 7, 2014) Case: 12-15144 Date Filed: 03/07/2014 Page: 1 of 32 Before WILSON, Circuit Judge , MIDDLEBROOKS , * and ALBRITTON , ** District Judges.
PER CURIAM: Solomon Manasseh Mustafa and his wife, Kalandra Wallace, were charged
in a 12

- c ount in dictment with criminal offenses arising from their participation in a sex trafficking operation in the metropolitan Atlanta area. After a jury trial and the
dismissal of one count of the indictment, Mustafa was convicted of the remaining
counts and senten ced to life imprisonment. He appeals his conviction, raising the following issues:
1. Whether t he district court erred in denying his motion pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986), alleging racial discrimination in the
selection of his jury

. 2. Whether t he district court erred in overruling his trial objections to testimony by a victim, a victim’s father, and Clayton County Police Officer Robert Boisis, in violation of the Confrontation Clause.
3. Whether t he district court erred in overruling his o bjection to the prosecution’s “Golden Rule” argument.

* Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation

. ** Honorable William H. Albritton, United States District Judg e for the Middle District of Al abama, sitting by designation

.

Case: 12-15144 Date Filed: 03/07/2014 Page: 2 of 33 4. Whether t he cumulative effect of the district court’s errors deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial. After review and consideration of the briefs and the record, and having the
benefit of oral argument, we find no harmful error in the proceedings in the district court. Therefore, the decision of the district court is
AFFIRMED. Case: 12-15144 Date Filed: 03/07/2014 Page: 3 of 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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, Cross-disciplinary Training in the Language Science of Billingualism.                    

*Date:*                         November 27, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852. (Telephone Conference Call)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Carla T. Walls, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health, and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6898,                         *wallsc@mail.nih.gov*.                     

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: October 26, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-5442  Filed 11-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### STATE v. JEFFERS

No. 98 PC

Case below: 48 NC App 663

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 27 January 1981. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 27 January 1981.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                               KYLE L. TINGLE, CPA








To Whom It May Concern:                                       August 20, 2004



The firm of Kyle L. Tingle, Certified Public Accountant, hereby consents to the
inclusion of his report of July 24, 2004, accompanying the audited financial
statements of Hawksdale Financial Visions, Inc., as at December 31, 2002,
contained in the audited financial statements as at December 31, 2003 in the
Form 10KSB.


Very truly yours,


/s/ Kyle L. Tingle


Kyle L. Tingle, CPA, LLC










P.O. Box 50141, Henderson, Nevada 89016, Phone: (702) 434-8452, Fax: (702)
436-4218, e-mail: Ktingle@worldnet.att.net