alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 89 (Monday, May 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 25884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10922]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Justice Programs

[OJP (NIJ) Docket No. 1518]


NIJ Body Armor Compliance Testing Program Workshop

AGENCY: National Institute of Justice.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is hosting a Body 
Armor Compliance Testing Program Workshop for manufacturers and test 
laboratories on Tuesday, May 18, 2010, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. NIJ is 
hosting this workshop specifically to update manufacturers and test 
laboratories with regard to the Compliance Testing Program, status of 
testing, administrative clarifications, and the follow-up inspection 
and testing process. This will be an open forum and there will ample 
opportunities for attendees to ask questions. Participants are strongly 
encouraged to come prepared to ask questions.
    Space is limited at this workshop, and as a result, only 100 
participants will be allowed to register. We request that each 
manufacturer and test laboratory limit their representatives to no more 
than two per organization. Exceptions to this limit may occur, should 
space allow. Participants planning to attend are responsible for their 
own travel arrangements. Please use the following http://www.justnet.org/Pages/RecordView.aspx?itemid=2396 to see an agenda and 
obtain the registration form to attend the Workshop. You will receive a 
response to your request within 2 business days.

DATES: The meeting will be held from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Westin Annapolis Hotel, 100 Westgate Circle, Annapolis, MD 
21401.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer O'Connor, by telephone at 
202-307-0070 [Note: this is not a toll-free telephone number], or by e-
mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d19bb4bfbfb8b7b4a3ff9ef692bebfbfbea391a4a2b5bebbffb6bea7">Jennifer.O'<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ad9f5f4f4f5e8daefe9fef5f0b4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a>.

Kristina Rose,
Acting Director, National Institute of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2010-10922 Filed 5-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Honorable Frank Hildebrand OpinionNo. M-720

Executive Director Texas Tourist DevelopmentAgency Re: Election of a Chairman of Box TT, Capitol Station the Texas Tourist Develop- 'Austin,Texas 78711' ment Board.. Dear Mr. Hildebrand:

Your request for an opinion asks the followingquestion: tr

. . .when may the Texas Tourist Development Board elect a new chairman?" Subdivision (d)of Section 1 of Article 6144f,Vernon's Civil Statutes,as amended by House Bill 792, Acts 61st Leg. 1969, R.S:,, provides, in part, as follows: ."(d)After the expiration of the term of the current chairman.of the board,..the b.oardshall elect‘snew chairman every two years. . . ." Inview of the expressprovisions above quoted, it is our opinion that the current chairman (Mr.John R. McCarty), who was the Chairman at the time the above act was passed, continues to hold the position of chairmanuntil the expiration of his term of office asmember of the Texas Tourist Development Board. At the expiration of his term of office Tourist DevelopmentBoard, the Board is chairman. as member of the Texas required to elect a new
SUMMARY Under the provisions of Article 6144f, Vernon's Civil Statutes, the current chairman of the Texas Tourist Development Board remains chairmanuntil the expiration of his term of office as member of the Texas Tourist Development Board. At the expiration of his term of

-3485- .Hon. Frank Hildebrand,page 2 (M-720)

office asmember of the Texas Tourist Development Board, the Board is required to elect a new chairman.

eneral of Texas Preparedby John Reeves AssistantAttorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Chairman W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman JamesMcCoy Bob Darden Sally Phillips Camm Lary MEADE F. GRIFFIN Staff Legal Assistant ALFREDWALKER ExecutiveAssistant' NOLAWHITE First Assistant

-3486-
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Brooks Sherman, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, as amended, (this Report) of Integrated Security Systems, Inc.;



2.

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



3.

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



4.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

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

(b)

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

(c)

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



5.

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



(a)

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

(b)

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



Date:  April 22, 2010

/s/ BROOKS SHERMAN

Brooks Sherman

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Principal Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7499

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES L. PETERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior

District Judge. (CR-94-111, CA-97-58-2)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 12, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles L. Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Grimes Johnston,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles L. Peterson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. Peterson, Nos. CR-94-

111; CA-97-58-2 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 3, 1998). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME FILED AS PART OF FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          27,109
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                      986
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (320)
<INVENTORY>                                         10
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,084
<PP&E>                                           3,236
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (753)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,567
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,019
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,450
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,567
<SALES>                                            921
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,004
<CGS>                                              529
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   673
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    149
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       149
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02<F1>
<FN>
<F1>
(1) Earnings per share have been prepared in accordance with SFAS No. 128,
"Earnings Per Share" and therefore basic and diluted earnings per share have
been entered in place of primary and fully diluted EPS, respectively.
</FN>
        




</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT32.2**

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 theQuarterly Report of Tower Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Franklin T. Klink, III, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
|        |   |   | /s/  Franklin T. Klink, III |   |
|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer          |   |
|   |   |   | August 8, 2007                   |   |

 

----
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 197

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to direct the Secretary

of the Interior to cease mineral leasing activity on the outer Continental

Shelf seaward of a coastal State that has declared a moratorium on

mineral exploration, development, or production activity in State water.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mrs. BOXER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to direct

the Secretary of the Interior to cease mineral leasing

activity on the outer Continental Shelf seaward of a

coastal State that has declared a moratorium on mineral

exploration, development, or production activity in State

water.

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 ‘‘Coastal States Protec5 tion Act’’.
2

•S 197 IS

1 SEC. 2. STATE MORATORIA ON OFFSHORE MINERAL LEAS2 ING.

3 Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

4 (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the

5 following:

6 ‘‘(p) STATE MORATORIA.—When there is in effect

7 with respect to land beneath navigable water (as defined

8 in section 2 of the Submerged Lands Act (16 U.S.C.

9 1301)) of a coastal State a moratorium on oil, gas, or

10 other mineral exploration, development, or production ac11 tivity established by statute or by order of the Governor,

12 the Secretary shall not issue a lease for the exploration,

13 development, or production of minerals on the outer Con14 tinental Shelf that is seaward of or adjacent to that

15 land.’’.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices 

# Order

June 14 , 2019

158300 & (44)

KEITH SMITH,

Plaintiff

- Appellee/Cross

- Appellant,

v SC: 158300

COA: 337708

Wayne CC: 15

- 001269

- NO

CITY OF DETROIT,

Defendant/Cross

- Plaintiff,

and

MERLO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant/Cross

- Defendant

- Appellant/Cross

- Appellee,

and

RAUHORN ELECTRIC, INC.,

Defendant/Cross

- Defendant/

Cross

- Plaintiff,

and

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF MICHIGAN, INC.,

and POCO, INC.,

Defendants/Cross

- Defendants.

__________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 24, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross

appellant are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the

application for l eave to appeal as cross

- appellant. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The plaintiff cross

- appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the

date of this order addressing whether the defendant cross

- appellee maintained possession

and control over the sidewalk such that plaintiff’s claim sounded in premises liability

rather than ordinary negligence. Compare Orel v Uni

- Rak Sales Co Inc , 454 Mich 564I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certif y that the

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

J une 14 , 2019

a0611 2

Clerk (1997)

, and Finazzo v Fire Equip Co , 323 Mich App 620 (2018), with Fraim v City

Sewer of Flint , 474 Mich 1101 (2006). In addition to the brief, the plaintiff shall

electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to

the record must provide the appe ndix page numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1).

The defendant shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being served with the

plaintiff’s brief. The defendant shall also electronically file an appendix, or in the

alternative, stipulate to the u se of the appendix filed by the plaintiff. A reply, if any, must

be filed by the plaintiff within 14 days of being served with the defendant’s brief. The

parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

The Michigan Association for Justice, Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc., and

the Negligence Section of the State Bar of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus

curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue presented in

this case may move the C ourt for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
Filed 3/11/14 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2014 ND 43

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Barry Lee Benson, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20130179

Appeal from the District Court of Bottineau County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable Michael G. Sturdevant, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Anthony S. Benson, Assistant State’s Attorney, 616 Main Street, Bottineau, ND 58318-1395, for plaintiff and appellee.

Ryan J. Thompson, Rolette County State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 1079, Rolla, ND 58367, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Benson

No. 20130179

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Barry Lee Benson appeals from a district court judgment entered following a jury trial in which Benson was found guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child. Benson argues the district court erred in denying Benson’s motions for acquittal due to insufficient evidence and abused its discretion in allowing the State to present the testimony of a witness over Benson’s objection.  We summarily affirm the district court judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 20, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-11519

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARCUS NELSON DEES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-69-ALL-Y

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marcus Nelson Dees appeals his 60-month sentence following his

guilty plea to possession of sexually explicit visual depictions of

a minor, which images had been shipped and transported in

interstate commerce. Dees argues that he was sentenced in

contravention of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005)

because the sentencing enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(1)

and U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3) were based on facts not admitted by him

or found by a jury. 
No. 04-11519

-2-

In the present case, the district court stated that it would

sentence Dees to the same sentence (60 months in prison) in the

event that the guidelines were held unconstitutional. Thus, the

Government has pointed to record evidence demonstrating beyond a

reasonable doubt that the federal constitutional error of which

Dess complains did not contribute to the sentence that he received.

See United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 377 (5th Cir. 2005).

Therefore the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
769 P.2d 612

#### STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Andy Ronald BEAMIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17558.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

March 6, 1989.

Charles B. Lempesis, Kootenai County Public Defender, Roland D. Watson, Deputy Public Defender, Post Falls for defendant-appellant.

Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Michael J. Kane, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-respondent.

SWANSTROM, Judge.

Andy Beamis appeals from a judgment of conviction imposing a fifteen-year sen*736tence, with a five-year minimum period of confinement, entered upon his plea of guilty to lewd conduct with a minor. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its sentencing discretion. We affirm.

Beamis committed the present offense when he engaged in sexual conduct with his eleven-year old stepdaughter. The record indicates that Beamis and the victim’s mother had for some time manipulated the victim and her younger sister into performing various sexual acts. *See State v. Arnold,*115 Idaho 736, 769 P.2d 613 (Ct.App.1989.) In mitigation of punishment the sentencing court considered Beamis’ lack of prior felony convictions and the positive support of his friends and associates. However, the sentencing court was troubled by Beamis’ denial of the full history of his sexual contacts with the victim or her younger sister, despite substantial information presented to the court by social workers and others. The court further expressed that “this is one of the most aggravated cases [it had] ever seen” and that the sentencing goals of protecting society, retribution and deterrence needed to be heavily considered in this case. In recognition of rehabilitative potential, the district court set only a five-year minimum period of confinement. The overall sentence imposed was well within the statutory maximum penalty of life imprisonment. I.C. § 18-1508.

Having considered the full record and having considered the sentencing review criteria found in *State v. Toohill,*103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct.App.1982), we conclude that the district court did not abuse its sentencing discretion. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

WALTERS, C.J., and BURNETT, J., concur.