alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Presidential Documents

70477 

Federal Register 

Vol. 72, No. 237 

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 

Title 3— 

The President 

Executive Order 13453 of December 6, 2007 

Closing of Executive Departments and Agencies of the 

Federal Government on Monday, December 24, 2007 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

Section 1. All executive branch departments and agencies of the Federal 

Government shall be closed and their employees excused from duty on 

Monday, December 24, 2007, the day before Christmas Day, except as provided in section 2 below. 

Sec. 2. The heads of executive branch departments and agencies may determine that certain offices and installations of their organizations, or parts 

thereof, must remain open and that certain employees must report for duty 

on December 24, 2007, for reasons of national security or defense or other 

public need. 

Sec. 3. Monday, December 24, 2007, shall be considered as falling within 

the scope of Executive Order 11582 of February 11, 1971, and of 5 U.S.C. 

5546 and 6103(b) and other similar statutes insofar as they relate to the 

pay and leave of employees of the United States. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

December 6, 2007. 

[FR Doc. 07–6022 

Filed 12–7–07; 11:52 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICESGWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
Case 1:98-cr-00005-MP-GRJ Document 56 Filed 12/23/11 Page 1 of 2 

Page 1 of 2 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 


GAINESVILLE DIVISION 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. CASE NO.1 :98cr5-MP-GRJ 

BRODDRICK DESHON MONGO, 

ORDER 

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and 

Recommendation dated November 9, 2011. (Doc. 55). The parties have been furnished 

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file 

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b )(1). I have made a de 

novo determination of any timely filed objections. 1 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto 

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted 

in part and rejected in part. 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation regarding defendant's 

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 39) is adopted and incorporated by 

reference in this order. 

2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 39) is DENIED and a 

certificate of appealability is DENIED, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 

Proceedings Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

3. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation regarding defendant's 

motion for correction of sentence (doc. 29) is rejected. 

1 No objections have been filed. 

Case 1:10-cv-00211-MP-GRJ Document 23 Filed 01/03/12 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:98-cr-00005-MP-GRJ Document 56 Filed 12/23/11 Page 2 of 2 

Page 2 of 2 

4. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, for all further proceedings with the 

suggestion that defendant be allowed to refile or amend his sentence calculation claim 

(doc. 29) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. 

DONE and ORDERED on this 23rd day of December, 2011. 

M. CASEY RODGERS 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case No.: 1 :98cr5-MP-G RJ 

Case 1:10-cv-00211-MP-GRJ Document 23 Filed 01/03/12 Page 2 of 2
Opinion filed April 2, 2020

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-19-00271-CR

___________

FRANKLIN DELANO LEE, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court

Brown County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR24668

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Franklin Delano Lee, Jr., waived a jury and pleaded not guilty to 

the offense of possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance. The trial

court convicted Appellant of the offense and assessed punishment at twenty-four 

months’ confinement. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to 

withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel concludes that there 

are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy 

of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, and a copy of a form motion so that 

Appellant could obtain a copy of the appellate record. Counsel advised Appellant 
2

of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also 

advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Appellant subsequently filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. We have 

reviewed Appellant’s response. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response, 

a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and 

issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible 

error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial 

court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently 

reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal 

exist.

1

We grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion to the extent that counsel requests to 

withdraw. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

April 2, 2020 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.2

Willson, J., not participating. 

1We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R.

APP. P. 68.

2

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 221 (Friday, November 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 64705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5714]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

[AC-21: OTS Nos. 15954 and H-4467]


Kaiser Federal Bank, Covina, California, and Kaiser Federal 
Financial Group, Inc., Covina, CA; Approval of Conversion Application

    Notice is hereby given that on November 9, 2007, the Office of 
Thrift Supervision approved the application of Kaiser Federal Bank, 
Covina, California, to convert to the stock form of organization. 
Copies of the application are available for inspection by appointment 
(phone number: 202-906-5922 or e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#24745146484d470a6d4a424b646b70770a70564145570a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4a1a3f282623296403242c250a051e19641e382f2b39642d253c">[email protected]</span></a>) at 
the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, and 
the OTS West Regional Office, Pacific Plaza, 2001 Junipero Serra 
Boulevard, Suite 650, Daly City, California 94014-1976.

    Dated: November 9, 2007.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Sandra E. Evans,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 07-5714 Filed 11-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 Special Emphasis Panel Review—Shultz P01.                    

*Date:*                         December 7, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         11 a.m. to 2 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:*                         Anne Krey, Scientific review Administrator, Division of Scientific review, National Institute of Child Health, and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6908.                    

(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: November 2, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-5619 Filed 11-09-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# CA2009107EN.01S00501.xml

| 9.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 107/s5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 107/s5

---

NOTICE TO READERS

NOTICE TO READERS

BG: Настоящият брой на Официален вестник е публикуван единствено на английски, немски и френски език.

ES: El presente Diario Oficial se publica únicamente en las lenguas alemana, francesa e inglesa.

CS: Toto číslo Úředního věstníku vychází pouze v angličtině, francouzštině a němčině.

DA: Denne EU-Tidende offentliggøres udelukkende på engelsk, fransk og tysk.

DE: Dieses Amtsblatt wird nur in Deutsch, Englisch und Französisch veröffentlicht.

ET: Käesolev Euroopa Liidu Teataja number ilmub ainult inglise, prantsuse ja saksa keeles.

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

EL: Η παρούσα Επίσημη Εφημερίδα εκδίδεται μόνο στην αγγλική, τη γαλλική και τη γερμανική γλώσσα.

EN: This Official Journal is only published in English, French and German.

FR: Le présent Journal officiel est uniquement publié en langues allemande, anglaise et française.

GA: Tá an Iris Oifigiúl seo á foilsiú i mBéarla, i bhFraincis agus i nGearmáinis amháin.

IT: La presente Gazzetta ufficiale è pubblicata solo in lingua francese, inglese e tedesca.

LV: Šis Oficiālais Vēstnesis ir publicēts tikai angļu, franču um vācu valodā.

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

LT: Šis Oficialusis leidinys išleistas tik anglų, prancūzų ir vokiečių kalbomis.

HU: A Hivatalos Lapnak ez a száma kizáról agangol, francia és német nyelven jelenik meg.

MT: Dan il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ser ikun ippubblikat biss bl-Ingliż, bil-Franċiż u bil-Ġermaniż.

NL: Dit Publicatieblad verschijnt uitsluitend in het Duits, het Engels en het Frans.

PL: Niniejszy Dziennik Urzędowy jest publikowany jedynie w językach niemieckim, angielskim i francuskim.

PT: O presente Jornal Oficial é apenas publicado nas línguas alemã, francesa e inglesa.

RO: Prezentul Jurnal Oficial este publicat numai în limbile engleză, franceză și germană.

SK: Tento úradný vestník vychádza iba v angličtine, francúzštine a nemčine.

SL: Ta Uradni list je objavljen samo v angleškem, francoskem in nemškem jeziku.

FI: Tämä virallisen lehden numero julkaistaan ainoastaan englannin, ranskan ja saksan kielellä.

SV: Detta nummer av Europeiska unionens officiella tidning utkommer endast på engelska, franska och tyska.

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

---
#### ABBOTT v. TOWN OF HIGHLANDS

No. 201 PC.

Case below: 52 N.C. App. 69.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 31 August 1981. Motion of defendant to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 31 August 1981.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JUAN FRANCISCO, 

Petitioner, 

vs. CASE NO. 4:10cv399-RH/WCS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

et al.,

Respondents. 

_________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending is Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. Doc. 1. In an order

entered September 17, 2010, Petitioner was directed to either pay the $5.00 filing fee

or, alternatively, submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by October 18,

2010. Doc. 3. Plaintiff’s copy of that order was returned to the Clerk's office marked

"return to sender, unable to forward." Docs. 4 and 5. A check with Wakulla County Jail

reveals that the Petitioner was released to ICE custody on September 20, 2010. To

date, Petitioner has not notified the court of his new address. 

Petitioner's last and only submission to the court was his original petition for writ

of habeas corpus filed September 15, 2010, only five days prior to his being released to

ICE custody. It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute his own lawsuit and to keep

this court apprised of his current address. Since Petitioner has not furnished the court
with a new address, it is doubtful that he will even receive a copy of this report and

recommendation. In the event the Petitioner does receive a copy of this report and

recommendation, the court will allow him an opportunity to show cause why this report

and recommendation should be vacated, failing which, the Clerk shall be directed to

forward the report and recommendation to the assigned district judge. 

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. 

IN CHAMBERS this 10th day of November, 2010.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv399-RH/WCS Page 2 of 2
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20878

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARMANDO MACIN-HERRERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-359-ALL

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Armando Macin-Herrera, federal prisoner # 88375-079,

appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to recall his

sentence. He argues that after he was convicted and sentenced, we

held that burglary of a building and unauthorized use of a motor

vehicle were not aggravated felonies under the amended version of

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 323

F.3d 317, 319 (5th Cir. 2003). He argues that under the amended

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 9, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
2

version of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, his sentence, which was enhanced under

the prior version of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 based on his prior convictions for burglary of a motor vehicle and auto theft, should be

vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

The district court did not have authority to reduce

Macin-Herrera’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255, or Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Because the amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 was not listed in

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), the amendment cannot be given retroactive

effect in the context of a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. See

United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 218 (5th Cir. 1996). Even if

the motion were liberally construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion,

the district court would not have had authority to consider or

grant it because it was not filed within the applicable one-year

statute of limitations. See United States v. Thomas, 203 F.3d 350,

354-55 (5th Cir. 2000). Rule 35 provides for the correction of a

sentence on remand, the reduction of a sentence for substantial

assistance upon the Government’s motion, and for the correction of

a sentence by the sentencing court within seven days after

imposition of the sentence. FED. R. CRIM. P. 35. Therefore, Rule 35

was not applicable to Macin-Herrera’s motion. Macin-Herrera’s

motion was an unauthorized motion which the district court was

without jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Early, 27
3

F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the district court’s

denial of Macin-Herrera’s motion is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Transcrypt International, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement 
(No. 333-30673) on Form S-8 of Transcrypt International, Inc. (the "Company")
of our report dated June 26, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of the Company and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996 and the
related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholder's equity
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended 
December 31, 1997, which report appears in the Annual Report on form 10-K of
the Company dated July 28, 1998.

/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Omaha, Nebraska
 July 28, 1998
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5186 

To amend the definition of a school resource officer to include certain 

veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2018 

Mr. MEADOWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the definition of a school resource officer to 

include certain veterans. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Securing 

5 Schools Act of 2018’’. 

6 SEC. 2. VETERANS EMPLOYABLE AS SCHOOL RESOURCE 

7 OFFICERS. 

8 Section 1709(4) of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

9 Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10389(4)) is amendVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:32 Mar 10, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5186.IH H5186

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5186 IH

1 ed by inserting after ‘‘a career law enforcement officer, 

2 with sworn authority,’’ the following: ‘‘or a veteran (as 

3 such term is defined in section 101(2) of title 38, United 

4 States Code) who is hired by a State or local public agency 

5 as a law enforcement officer for purposes of serving as 

6 a school resource officer, who is’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.6


 


  


Exhibit A (Services)


 


The Services to be provided by
Consultant (BCMG) are as follows within the entertainment and technology sector that applies to Company’s business model:


 


		1.	Identify and vet potential acquisitions



		2.	Identify and vet potential Joint Ventures



		3.	General consulting and guidance on business development



 


 


 







	 	Web: http://gawk.com



		Email: info@gawk.com



		Phone: (888) 754-6190
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TYLER CHASE HARPER, a minor, by 

and through his parents Ron and

Cheryl Harper; RON HARPER; CHERYL

HARPER,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT;

JEFF MANGUM; LINDA VANDERVEEN;

PENNY RANFTYLE; STEVE MCMILLAN;

ANDY PATAPOW, All Individually and

in their official capacity as Members No. 04-57037

of the Board of the Poway Unified D.C. No.

School District; DONALD A. PHILLIPS, CV-04-01103-JAH

Individually, and in his official Southern District

capacity as Superintendent of the  of California,

Poway Unified School District; San Diego

SCOTT FISHER, Individually and in his ORDER official capacity as Principal of AMENDING Poway High School; LYNELL OPINION ANTRIM, Individually and in her

official capacity as Assistant

Principal of Poway High School; ED

GILES, Individually and in his

official capacity as Vice Principal of

Poway High School; DAVID

LEMASTER, Individually and in his

official capacity as Teacher of

Poway High School; DOES 1

THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants-Appellees. 

5909
Filed May 31, 2006

Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Alex Kozinski, and

Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The majority opinion filed April 29, 2006, is hereby amended

as follows: 

1. At Slip Op. at 4676, footnote 28, at the end of

the footnote, add: “We do not exclude, however, the

possibility that some verbal assaults on the core

characteristics of majority high school students

would merit application of the Tinker “intrusion

upon the rights of other students” prong. That question is not presently before us.” 

The dissenting opinion filed April 29, 2006, is hereby

amended as follows: 

1. At Slip Op. at 4710, footnote 11, between <Id.

at 4667.> and <Read broadly, this would protect>,

add: “The majority also does not “exclude . . . the

possibility that some verbal assaults on the core

characteristics of majority high school students

would merit application of the Tinker ‘intrusion

upon the rights of other students’ prong.” Id. at ___

n.28. 

Appellants’ petition for rehearing en banc is still pending

before this court.

5910 HARPER v. POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2006 Thomson/West.