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

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

# TIME AND DATE:

12 p.m.-3 p.m., June 22, 2010 (Closed).

# PLACE:

Teleconference.

# STATUS:

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

      ( print page 28262)    

# MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED:

The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Improved Diagnostics Lyme Borreliosis,” FOA CK10-005.

# FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine J. Morrison, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop D72, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: (404) 639-3098.

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Dated: May 6, 2010.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2010-12167 Filed 5-19-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50694 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus STEPHEN BOGDON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-88-CR-120

- - - - - - - - - - June 26, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Stephen Bogdon, Texas prisoner # 40215-080, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his term of imprisonment under 28 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his § 3582(c)(2) motion. He argues that Amendment 268, which clarified § 4B1.2(2) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, should be applied retroactively to reduce his term of imprisonment. BecauseNo. 95-50694 - 2 - Amendment 268 is not listed as having retroactive application under § 1B1.10(c) of the Guidelines, Bogdon may not obtain relief under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Shaw , 30 F.3d 26, 29-30 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Miller , 903 F.2d 3412, 349 (5th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2602

To provide for the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to fund,

on a 1-year emergency basis, certain requests for grant renewal under

the programs for permanent supportive housing and shelter-plus-care

for homeless persons.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 23, 2000

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs

A BILL

To provide for the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to fund, on a 1-year emergency basis, certain requests for grant renewal under the programs for permanent supportive housing and shelter-plus-care for homeless persons.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EMERGENCY FUNDING OF RENEWAL RE4 QUESTS FOR HOMELESS HOUSING GRANTS.

5 (a) AUTHORITY.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, from any amounts made available for fiscal

7 year 2000 for assistance under section 8 of the United
2

•S 2602 IS

1 States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) that are

2 unobligated as of the date of enactment of this Act, the

3 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, for

4 each request described in subsection (b), make a 1-year

5 grant to the entity making the request in the amount

6 under subsection (c).

7 (b) ELIGIBLE RENEWAL REQUESTS.—A request de8 scribed in this subsection is a request for a grant under

9 subtitle C of title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Home10 less Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11381 et seq.) for perma11 nent housing for homeless persons with disabilities or sub12 title F of such title (42 U.S.C. 11403 et seq.) that—

13 (1) was submitted in accordance with the eligi14 bility requirements established by the Secretary and

15 pursuant to the notice of funding availability for fis16 cal year 1999 covering such programs, but was not

17 approved;

18 (2) was made by an entity that received such a

19 grant pursuant to the notice of funding availability

20 for a previous fiscal year; and

21 (3) requested renewal of funding made under

22 such previous grant for use for eligible activities be23 cause funding under such previous grant expires

24 during calendar year 2000.
3

•S 2602 IS

1 (c) GRANT AMOUNT.—The amount under this sub2 section is the amount necessary, as determined by the Sec3 retary, to renew funding for the eligible activities under

4 the grant request for a period of only 1 year, taking into

5 consideration the amount of funding requested for the

6 first year of funding under the grant request.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,778
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              99
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,700
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      9,982
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,205
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             2,220
<LOANS>                                         24,052
<ALLOWANCE>                                        290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,175
<DEPOSITS>                                      38,690
<SHORT-TERM>                                       279
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                170
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,284
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,752
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  43,175
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,246
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  641
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   152
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,039
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,201
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,223
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,816
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       49
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (4)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,485
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    631
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       470
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.22
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       236
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   266
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       41
<RECOVERIES>                                        16
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  290
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               143
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            147


</TABLE>
#### Mary Smith, Appellant, *v.*Maria Moulson, Respondent.

*A finding of fact without any evidence to support it*— an *exception is necessary to the review thereof.*

Where a finding of fact is made by tlie court without evidence to support the finding, an exception is necessary to bring the case up for review, as the question whether there was evidence to support the finding is one of law, and if in such case no exception is taken to the ruling of the trial court and filed as required by section 994 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and no exception is taken to the conclusion of law that the complaint be dismissed, the judgment will be affirmed on appeal.

Appeal by tbe plaintiff, Mary Smith, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Monroe on the 5th day of October, 1894, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Monroe Special Term dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint upon the merits.

*William E.*Edmonds, for the appellant.

*F. E. DraTte,*for the respondent.

Ward, J.:

The principal objection raised to the judgment by the appellant is that the court found that the consideration for a contract for the purchase of the land between the parties had not been paid, and there was no evidence to support that finding. Where there is a finding of fact without evidence an exception is necessary to bring the case up for review as it is a question of law whether there was evidence to support the finding. *(Mead*v. *Smith,*28 Hun, 639; *Underhill*v. Nichols, 8 Wkly. Dig. 276; *Healy*v. *Clark,*120 N. Y. 642.) There was no exception to the ruling of the trial court filed as required by section 994 of the Code of Civil Procedure. - At all events there should have been an exception to the conclusion of law that the complaint be dismissed.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Dwight, P. J., Lewis and Bradley, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
# Margaret Chase Smith: A Featured Biography

**

----

On June 1, 1950, Margaret Chase Smith delivered in the Senate Chamber a "Declaration of Conscience" against McCarthyism, defending every American's "right to criticize ... right to hold unpopular beliefs ... right to protest." A Republican senator from Maine, Smith served 24 years in the U.S. Senate beginning in 1949, following more than four terms in the House of Representatives—the first woman to serve in both houses of Congress. Often the only woman in the Senate, Smith chose not to limit herself to "women's issues," making her mark in foreign policy and military affairs. She established a reputation as a tough legislator on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Her 1960 reelection bid was the first Senate race where both major-party candidates were women, and in 1964 she became the first woman to actively seek the presidential nomination of a major political party. In 1973 Smith retired to her home in Skowhegan, Maine, where she died in 1995 at the age of 97. In October of 2005, the Senate unveiled a new portrait of Smith.

All Featured Biographies

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.

### Related Art 

Margaret Chase Smith
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t 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 l unani 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 AL MA R OS A N AV AR R E T E P R AD O, a. k. a. A l m a R osa N avar ee t e P ra do , a. k. a. A l m aR os aN avarr e t e - P r a do, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 72202 A ge nc yN o. A 070- 121- 516 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 a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 26, 2012 ** B ef ore: S C H R O E D E R , H A W K IN S , and G O U L D , C i rc ui tJudg es A l m aR os aN avarr e t e P r a do, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons 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 her app ea l fr om an 

# FI LED JU L 02 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 72202 2 im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n g r an tin g th e g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n to te rm in a te r e m o v a l p r o c e e d i n g s . We d i s m i s s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. B e c aus e an or de rt e rm i na t i ng r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs i s notaf i na l or de rof r e m o v a l, w e la c kju r is d ic tio n o v e rN av arr e te P r a d o ’s p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . See A lcala v. H

older , 5 6 3 F .3 d1 0 0 9 , 1 0 1 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ; s e e al s o 8 U . S. C. § 1252( b) ( 9) ( “ Judi c i a l r e vi e w of a l l que s t i ons of

l aw and f

a c t. . . s ha l l be avai l abl e onl y i n j ud i ci alre vi ew of a f i nal order [ of re m ov al ] . ”) . PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D I SM I SSED .
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

         In connection with the periodic report of Rancon Realty Fund IV (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Daniel L. Stephenson,
General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that I perform the functions of chief executive officer and chief financial
officer of the Partnership and that, to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

         (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Partnership at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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

Date: August 14, 2003                         /s/ Daniel Stephenson
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Daniel Stephenson, General Partner
                                              Rancon Realty Fund IV
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 227 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 227

  To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to provide or support 
programs to provide individuals with hypodermic needles or syringes for 
                       the use of illegal drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

Mr. Coverdell (for himself and Mr. Brownback) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to provide or support 
programs to provide individuals with hypodermic needles or syringes for 
                       the use of illegal drugs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR HYPODERMIC NEEDLES.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds shall 
be made available or used to carry out or support, directly or 
indirectly, any program of distributing sterile hypodermic needles or 
syringes to individuals for the hypodermic injection of any illegal 
drug.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of FiberTower Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas A. Scott,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated:March 29, 2007
|        | /s/ THOMAS A.  SCOTT    |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Thomas A. Scott         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not beconsidered filed as part of the Report.

----
#### In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Darwin W. Esmond and J. Bradley Scott, as Trustees of the Estate of Alfred Bridgeman, Deceased, Respondents. Walter A. Bridgeman, Appellant; Catharine H. Muir and Others, Respondents.

Second Department,

June 23, 1911.

Will — construction.,

• Where a will bequeaths to testator’s son an indebtedness due from him to the testator, and directs that such debt be deducted from the son’s share of the estate, and the amount due and owing from the son be considered as a part of the estate, and the bequest of such indebtedness to him be charged as a payment on account of his share of the estate, and then directs, that the estate be equally divided between the son and two daughters, the son’s heirs are entitled to one-third of the estate after , adding thereto them father’s debt, less the amount of such indebtedness. JENKS, P. J., dissented.

Appeal by Walter A. Bridgeman - from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of the county of Orange, entered in said Surrogate’s Court on-the 24th day of January, 1911, judicially settling the accounts of the executors and trustees under the will of Alfred Bridgeman, deceased.

*F. W. Clifford,*for the appellant.

*Albert H. F. Seeger*'and *William Vanamee,*for the respondents.

*622■Woodward, J.:

Alfred Bridgeman, a resident of Newburgh, N. Y., died, leaving a last will and testament, which was duly admitted to probate on the 20th day of June, 1903, and the appeal now before this court is from a decree of the surrogate of Orange county judicially settling the accounts of Darwin W. Esmond and J. Bradley Scott, executors'and trustees under said last will. The will is clear and unambiguous; it is not open to any reasonable question of intention, and yet we are asked to overrule the learned surrogate, who has decreed that the obvious language of the testator is to be given its full effect. The testator had three children, one son and two daughters. The son appears to have had advances aggregating about $37,000. The will clearly provides that this amount shall be added to the estate, and that it shall then be divided into three equal parts, after the payment of debts, etc., and each of these parts aré disposed of to the three children. Testator’s son is dead, and the appellant is a son. of the testator’s son, and he now claims that he is entitled to one-third of' the estate, without the repayment of $37,000 which had been advanced to his father. Aside from the unfairness of the proposition, the language of the will is so clearly against the construction contended for that it would be a waste of time to discuss the question.

The decree of the surrogate should be affirmed, with costs. .

Hirsci-iberg, Burr and Bich, JJ., concurred; Jenks, P. J., dissented.

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Orange county affirmed, with costs. ■
# Marines in the Senate

**

----

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Related Link 

U.S. Marines in the Senate, November 10, 1775 (Historical Highlight)

### Senate Historical Office 

Information provided by the Senate Historical Office.

Questions about Senate History?Email a Senate historian.