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 State

          - [Public Notice 7026]

Based upon a review of the Administrative Records assembled in these matters pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (“INA”), and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the 2004 re-designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization have not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of the designation.

Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization, pursuant to section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be maintained.

                    This determination shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: May 6, 2010.

James B. Steinberg,

Deputy Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2010-12440 Filed 5-21-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2047

FRANK PAUL LUKACS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES; HAROLD E. VARMUS, Dr., Director, National Institute of Health; RICHARD

CLAUSNER, Dr., Director, National Cancer

Institute; BEVERLY LOTT WYATT, Chief, Research

Contracts Branch, National Cancer Institute;

DAVID SNIGHT, Chief, Research Contracts

Branch, Division of Contracts and Grants, OA,

OD, National Institute of Health; PHILIP

AMORUSO, Executive Director, National Cancer

Institute; MAXINE RICHARDSON, Equal Employment

Opportunity Manager, National Cancer Institute; MARIANNE WAGNER, Personnel Officer,

National Cancer Institute; DIANE ARMSTRONG,

Equal Employment Opportunity Director, National Institute of Health; JAMES KING, Director,

Office of Personnel Management; SANDRA THOMAS,

Equal Employment Opportunity Manager, National

Cancer Institute,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA96-2913-PJM)
2

Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Frank Paul Lukacs, Appellant Pro Se. Earle Bronson Wilson, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders: (1) adopting

the magistrate judge's recommendation and striking a portion of

Appellant's 540 page brief in opposition to a Motion to Dismiss;

(2) dismissing without prejudice twenty motions Appellant filed in

relation to his civil complaint and directing that all parties file

no further motions; and (3) returning to Appellant his Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment and his Motion for Reconsideration of the

order dismissing the twenty motions, both of which were filed after

the court had ordered the parties not to file any additional

motions.

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion

in dismissing Appellant's Motion for Injunctive Relief. See Blackwelder Furniture Co. v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189, 195-96 (4th

Cir. 1977). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of injunctive relief.

We dismiss the appeal of the remaining orders for lack of

jurisdiction because the orders are not appealable. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed are

neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral

orders.
4

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.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
Exhibit 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John A. Featherman, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,  certify
that: -----------------------

1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the period  ending
March 31, 2004 of First Chester County Corporation;

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  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 the registrant 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 the  registrant,  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 the registrant'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 the  registrant's  internal
control over financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual  report)  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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  registrant'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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

May 14, 2004

/s/ John A. Featherman, III
---------------------------
John A. Featherman, III
Chief Executive Officer
Office of Equal Employment and Supplier Diversity Updated 9/13/2021

timeframes in the 

EEO Complaints ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY 

Process are calendar 

days. ACTION OR EVENT 

MUST CONTACT 

EEO Counselor within 

45 days of the action 

or event. 

INFORMAL STAGE I rl PRE-COMPLAINT ACTIVITIES JTraditional Counseling within Alternative Dispute Resolution 30 days; with possible exten- within 90 days (Mediation) sion up to 60 days 

I Final Int erview I 

FORMAL STAGE I 1 5 Days to File 

Formal Complaint 

180 Days to Investigate 

and Issue Report 

30 Days to Request EEOC Hearing 

: If No Hearing I I If Hearing I or Final Agency Decision 

I 

I 

40 Days from Receipt of 30 Days from Receipt of 60 Days from Request to Admin Judge's Finding Final Agency Decision to Issue Final Agency to Issue Final Agency Appeal to EEOC Decision Decision 

I 

30 Days from Receipt of 

Office of Federal Operations 

Decision to Request 

Reconsideration 

90 Days from Receipt of Final 

Agency Decision or Office of 

Federal Operations to 

File Civil Action 

EEO Complaints Process Flowchart
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Edward F. Lange, Jr. hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 of BRE Properties, Inc. (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of BRE Properties, Inc.



|                         |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                                   
|------------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 18, 2009 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    Edward F. Lange, Jr.                                                                       
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | Edward F. Lange, Jr. Executive Vice
President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOTPED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-QSB (the
Report) of Telemetrix inc. (the Company) for the fiscal
quarter ended September 30, 2004, I, William Becker, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive and Accounting Officer) of the
Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

| | (1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange  Act  of 1934: and
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condion and results of operations of the Company.
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  December
15, 2005

| | /s/
William BeckerName: William BeckerTitle: Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer
   (Principal Executive and Accounting Officer)
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
# States in the Senate | Colorado Senators

**

----

**Introduction****Senators****Timeline**

 1. Vacancy from Jan. 11, 1911, to Jan. 14, 1913, because of failure of legislature to elect.

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

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [LLORC00000.L58820000.AL0000.LXRSCC990000.252W; HAG 10-0257]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Meeting Notice for the Coos Bay District Resource Advisory Committee.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coos Bay District Resource Advisory Committee (CBDRAC) will meet as indicated below:

# DATES:

The CBDRAC meeting will begin at 9 a.m. PDT on May 27, 2010.

# ADDRESSES:

The CBDRAC will meet at the Coos Bay BLM District Office, 1300 Airport Lane, North Bend, Oregon 97459.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Glenn Harkleroad, Assistant Field Manager, 1300 Airport Lane, North Bend, OR 97459, (541) 751-4361, or e-mail                         *glenn_harkleroad@blm.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The meeting agenda includes new member orientation, election of officers, and other matters as may reasonably come before the council. The public is welcome to attend all portions of the meeting and may make oral comments to the Council at 10 a.m. on May 27, 2010. Those who verbally address the CBDRAC are asked to provide a                     *written*                     statement of their comments or presentation. Unless otherwise approved by the CBDRAC Chair, the public comment period will last no longer than 15 minutes, and each speaker may address the CBDRAC for a maximum of five minutes. If reasonable accommodation is required, please contact the BLM's Coos Bay District at (541) 756-0100 as soon as possible.                

Dated: May 10, 2010.

Mark E. Johnson,

District Manager, Coos Bay District Office.

[FR Doc. 2010-11626 Filed 5-14-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
#### Angus Ferguson, plaintiff in error, *vs.*The New Manchester Manufacturing Company, defendant in error.

Where an affidavit of taxes paid, as is required by the Act of October 13, 1870, was filed within the time prescribed, but the affidavit failed to say that “ the plaintiff expected to prove the same on the trial:” *Held,*That the affidavit is amendable at the trial.

Belief Act of 1870. Tax affidavit. Amendment. Before Judge Wright. Douglass Superior Court. April Term, 1872.

Angus Ferguson brought assumpsit to the October Term, 1871, of Douglass Superior Court, against the New Manchester Manufacturing Company on several notes made before June 1st, 1865. When said cause was called for trial, counsel for defendant moved to dismiss the same, on the ground that the affidavit as to the payment of the taxes, filed by plaintiff, did not state that he expected to prove on the trial that the taxes on. the claims, which were the foundation of said action, had been duly given in and paid, as required by law. Plaintiff proposed to amend said affidavit to meet the objection made by the defendant. The Court held said affidavit to be fatally defective,- and that the same could not be amended, and directed that the suit be dismissed. Whereupon, plaintiff excepted, and assigns said ruling as error.

Collier, Mynatt & Collier; Pope *&*Brown, for plaintiff in error,

submitted the following brief: 1. An affi*462davit as to payment of taxes is pleading; all pleadings are amendable: Code, sec. 3429. 2. There was no plea or demurrer made in the Court below, on the ground that the demand was barred by the statute of limitations. This Court will not now consider objections on that ground : 6 Ga. E., 207; *§ Ibid.,*9; *16 Ibid.,*49; 18 *Ibid.,*534; Const., Art. V., sec. 2., part 2.

William Ezzard, for defendant.

McCay, Judge.

We think this'affidavit amendable. The substance of the Act is complied with in the original affidavit. It is mere matter of form that is proposed to be supplied. The affidavit is not here the foundation of the proceeding, in the sense of section 3453 of the Code.

Judgment reversed.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                                                     Subsidiaries

                                                   Jurisdiction of               Jurisdiction of Foreign
Company                                            Incorporation                 Qualification, if any
-------                                            -------------                 ---------------------
<S>                                                <C>                           <C>

Brookstone Homes, Inc.                             Delaware                      Wisconsin
Buffington Holdings, Inc.                          Delaware                      None
Christopher Homes Custom                           Nevada                        None
  Home Division, Inc.
Fortress-Florida, Inc.                             Delaware                      Florida
  d/b/a Fortress-Jax, Inc.
Fortress Galloway, Inc.                            Delaware                      None
Fortress Mortgage, Inc.                            Delaware                      Arizona
                                                                                 Florida
                                                                                 Nevada
                                                                                 North Carolina
                                                                                 South Carolina
                                                                                 Texas
                                                                                 Virginia
                                                                                 Wisconsin
Fortress Missouri-Construction, LLC                Delaware                      None
Fortress Missouri-Lumber, LLC                      Delaware                      None
Fortress Missouri-Title, LLC                       Delaware                      None
Fortress Pennsylvania, LLC                         Delaware                      Pennsylvania
Fortress Tysons, LLC                               Delaware                      Virginia
The Genesee Company                                Colorado                      Arizona, Michigan
Landmark Homes, Inc.                               North Carolina                South Carolina
Legacy Homes, Inc.                                 North Carolina                None
Solaris Development Corporation                    North Carolina                None
Wilshire Homes, Inc.                               Texas                         None

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7728

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD HENRY LATIMER, III, a/k/a Eddie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:17-cr-00065-RAJ-LRL-12)

Submitted: April 26, 2022 Decided: April 29, 2022

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Henry Latimer, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Henry Latimer, III, appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of

a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d

326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and

conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons

for the denial. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing

amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion). Accordingly, 

we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED