alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3888]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, and Section 
122(d)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
Liability Act (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d)(2); notice is hereby 
given that a proposed consent decree in United States v. Nick Lipari, 
Civil Action No. 1:95cv00507, was lodged on January 30, 1995, with the 
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden 
Vicinage. The proposed decree resolves the United States' claims under 
CERCLA against defendant Nick Lipari with respect to the Lipari 
Landfill Superfund Site, in Mantua Township, New Jersey. Nick Lipari is 
the alleged owner and operator of the Site, to which hazardous 
substances were sent for disposal. Under the terms of the proposed 
decree, Nick Lipari will pay to the United States and the State of New 
Jersey $1,350,000, plus interest.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United 
States v. Nick Lipari, DOJ Ref. #90-11-3-86A.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney, 402 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey; the 
Region II Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 26 Federal 
Plaza, New York, New York; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G 
Street NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of 
the proposed consent decree may be obtained in person or by mail from 
the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street NW., 4th Floor, Washington, 
DC 20005. In requesting a copy please refer to the referenced case and 
enclose a check in the amount of $9.75 (25 cents per page reproduction 
costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Bruce Gelber,
Acting Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 95-3888 Filed 2-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
```
1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2700

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Darius M. Moss, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 21, 2006

Filed: April 6, 2006 

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Darius Moss appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b) motion challenging a 1999 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion; he also appeals the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)

motion. Moss’s motion was in reality a successive section 2255 motion. Cf.

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2647-48 (2005) (Rule 60(b) motion should not

be treated as successive habeas motion if it attacks district court’s previous resolution

of claim on procedural grounds); United States v. Patton, 309 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th
-2-

Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (inmates may not bypass authorization requirement of § 2255

by purporting to invoke some other procedure). Thus, we deny a certificate of

appealability (COA), see United States v. Lambros, 404 F.3d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir.)

(per curiam) (COA is required to appeal denial of any motion that ultimately seeks

habeas relief), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2953 (2005), and dismiss this appeal.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 31.1



Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Frederick A. Cary, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Path 1 Network Technologies Inc.



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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
quarterly report;



4. The registrants other
certifying officer(s) 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 quarterly 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 officer(s) 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 data; 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.



Date: January 26, 2004



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/    FREDERICK A. CARY                 
|                                         
|Frederick A. Cary Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10089]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4337]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting President's Cancer 
Panel

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting 
of the President's Cancer Panel, National Cancer Institute, March 28, 
1995 at the National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, 
Building 31, Conference Room 6.
    This meeting will be open to the public on March 28, 1995 from 8 
a.m. to approximately 5 p.m. The topic will be: The Human Genome 
Project.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance such as 
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations should 
contact Ms. Nora Winfrey, (301-496-1148), in advance of the meeting.
    Dr. Maureen O. Wilson, Executive Secretary, President's Cancer 
Panel, National Cancer Institute, Building 31, Room 4A34, National 
Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (301/496-1148) will 
provide a roster of the Panel members and substantive program 
information upon request.

    Dated: February 15, 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-4337 Filed 2-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### STATE v. BILL BILLER, VERNON JACKSON LLOYD and LARRY BROOKS HOLT.

(Filed 10 June, 1960.)

1; Larceny § 4—

A warrant for larceny which fails to allege the ownership of the property either in a natural person or a legal entity capable of owning property, is fatally defective.

2. Criminal Law § 121

The legal effect of arrest of judgment for fatal defect of the warrant is to vacate the-verdict and judgment, but it does not preclude the State from thereafter proceeding upon a sufficient warrant or indictment if it so desires.

Appeal by defendants from *Carr, J.,*at December Term, 1959 of ORANGE.

Criminal prosecution upon two warrants issued out of Recorder’s Court, Chapel Hill, Orange ■ County, North Carolina, one charging that on 23rd day of November, 1959, Bid Biller “did unlawfully and wilfully enter the premises of U-Wash-It,’ in Chapel Hill, and did break from its fastenings, steal, take, and remove one change-making machine and monies contained therein, with intent to deprive the owners of the said machine and monies and to appropriate same to his own use, knowing them to be stolen in violation, of the ordinances of the City of Chapel Hill, and contrary to the form of the statute and against the peace and dignity of the State”; and the other, charging Larry Brooks Holt and Vernon Jackson Lloyd with aiding and abetting Bill Biller in the commission of the offense substantially as described in the first warrant, etc. The record reveals plea of *784not guilty by defendants; motion to quash warrants; trial in Superior Court; and verdict of guilty of larceny as charged as to each defendant, and judgment pronounced and their appeal to Supreme Court — and assignment of error.

*Attorney General Bruton, Assistant Attorney General Glenn L. Hooper, Jr., for the State.*

*Dalton H. Loftin for defendants appellants.*

PeR Cuhiam:

Defendants move in Supreme Court in arrest of judgment on the ground that the warrants under which they were tried, convicted and sentenced, are fatally defective in that they did not sufficiently allege that the owner of the property allegedly stolen was either a natural person or a legal entity capable of owning property, citing as authority therefor the case of *S. v. Thornton,*251 N.C. 658, 111 S.E. 2d 901.

The Attorney General in response thereto states that before pleading to the warrants the defendants moved to quash the same, and their motion was denied, and they except; and that he is unable to distinguish the instant case from the Thornton case wherein judgment was arrested.

The legal effect of arresting the judgment is to vacate verdict of guilty of larceny as charged and judgment of imprisonment imposed below, and the State, if it so desire, may proceed against defendants upon a sufficient indictment. *S. v. Thornton, supra,*and cases cited. See also *S. v. Rorie, ante.*

Judgment arrested.
## United States Court of App eals
F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 0- 34 78

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *
* App el le e, *
* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e * W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. Troy W ay ne Fle tc he r, *
* [UNPUBLISHED] App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Octo be r 14 , 20 11 Fi le d: Octo be r 18 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re WOL LMAN, SMITH, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM. Troy W ay ne Fl et ch er pl ead ed gu i l ty to rece iv in g ch il d po rn og rap hy, in vi ol at io n of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) an d (b)( 1) , an d fail in g to ap pe ar, in vio la ti on of 18 U.S.C. § 3 14 6( a)(1 ). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 28 8 m on th s in pr is on , 1

co ns is ti ng of a 24 0- m on th te rm on th e ch il d- po rn og rap hy of fen se an d a co ns ecu ti ve 4 8

- mo n t h te rm on th e fai lu re-t o- ap pe ar of fen se

. The co ur t im

po se d a li fe te rm of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e, wit h s ev eral sp eci al co nd it io ns

.

The Hon or ab le Ji m

m Larry Hen dr en , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es D ist ri ct Cour t 1 fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.Fl et ch er’s co un se l m ov ed to wit hd raw an d fil ed a b r ie f un de r And ers v.

Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7)

. Aft e r w e rev ie wed th e reco rd in de pe nd en tl y pu rs ua nt to Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S

. 75 (1 98 8) , we de ni ed co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw an d di rect ed th e pa rti es to br ie f whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in im po si ng
a sp eci al co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e pr oh ib it in g Fl et ch er fro m ha vi ng in te rn et

acce ss at hi s res id en ce, an d fro m ha vi ng --wi th ou t pr io r ap pr ov al by th e pr ob at io n of fic e an d a jus t ifi ed reas on --ac ces s to an in te rn et -co nn ect ed co m pu te r or ot he r de vi ce wit h in te rn et cap ab il it ie s or acce s s to th e in te rn et fro m an y lo cat io n. Afte r
care fu l rev ie w of th e reco rd an d th e arg um en ts ad va nc ed by bo th pa rti es , we co nc lu de th at , gi ve n th e pa rti cu la r fact s o f t h i s c a se , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t pl ai nl y err in im po si ng th e sp eci al co nd it io n reg ard in g in te rn et acce ss

. See Uni te d St at es v. Koc h, 62 5 F.3 d 47 0, 48 1- 82 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ); Uni te d St at es v. Dur ha m , 61 8 F.3 d 92 1, 94 3- 45 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Sm it h, No. 10 -3 57 9, 20 11 W L 41 04 91 5, at *3 (8t h C ir. Se pt . 16 , 20 11 ).

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
#### STATE v. MELVIN NELSON.

(Filed 18 September, 1946.)

Criminal Law § 80b (4) —

Where a defendant convicted of a capital felony fails to file case on appeal in the Superior Court, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss, made after expiration of time agreed for perfecting the appeal and any extension of time which may have been granted, will be allowed after a careful inspection of the record proper fails to disclose ei’ror.

Appeal by defendant from *Clement, J.,*at October Term, 1945, of BlCHMOND.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moody for the State.*

*No counsel contra.*

Per Curiam,

Tbe defendant was convicted at October Term, 1945, Ricbmond County Superior Court, of murder in tbe first degree, and sentence of death pronounced upon bim in accordance witb law. He gave notice of appeal to tbe Supreme Court, but no case on appeal bas been docketed in tbis Court, and no case on appeal filed in tbe office of tbe Clerk of tbe Superior Court of Bicbmond County. Tbe time agreed upon by counsel for perfecting tbe appeal, and any extension of time wbicb may bave been granted, bas expired, and tbe Clerk of tbe Superior Court of Bicbmond County certifies that counsel for tbe defendant informs bim that be does not intend to perfect tbe appeal.

Thereupon, tbe Attorney-General bas caused tbe record proper to be filed in tbis Court, and moves tbe Court that tbe case and record be docketed, and tbe appeal dismissed under Rule 17 of the Rules of Practice of this Court.

We bave carefully examined tbe record filed in tbis case and find no error therein. For tbe causes stated, tbe motion of tbe Attorney-General is allowed, tbe appeal is dismissed, and tbe judgment of tbe lower court is affirmed. *S. v. Watson,*208 N. C., 70, 179 S. E., 455; *S. v. Johnson,*205 N. C., 610, 172 S. E., 219; *S. v. Goldston,*201 N. C., 89, 158 S. E., 926; *S. v. Hamlet,*206 N. C., 568, 174 S. E., 451.

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4263]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Joint Application of NAVCOM Aviation, Inc., Ultrair, Inc., and 
Paradise Airways, Inc., for Transfer of Certificate Authority Under 
Section 41105

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of order to show cause (order 95-2-31) docket 49813.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not (1) find Paradise Airways, 
Inc., fit to engage in interstate scheduled air transportation of 
persons, property, and mail, (2) transfer to it the section 41102 
certificate held by Ultrair, Inc., and (3) cancel the interstate and 
foreign charter certificate authority held by Ultrair, Inc.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
February 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Docket 49813 and addressed to the Documentary Services Division (C-55, 
Room PL-401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street 
SW., Washington, D.C. 20590 and should be served upon the parties 
listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kathy Lusby Cooperstein, Air 
Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590, (202) 
366-2337.

    Dated: February 14, 1995
Patrick V. Murphy,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 95-4263 Filed 2-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                           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 the quarterly report of Alec Bradley Cigar
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Alan Rubin, Chief Executive 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 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 condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Date: November 11, 2003


/s/ Alan Rubin
--------------
Alan Rubin
Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 3.1**
**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**
**OF**
**RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**
     USFreightways Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under andby virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, DOES HEREBYCERTIFY:
     FIRST: That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of USFreightwaysCorporation resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment tothe Restated Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring saidamendment to be advisable and calling a meeting of the stockholders of saidcorporation for consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth theproposed amendment is as follows:
     RESOLVED, that the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of USFreightways
     Corporation be amended by changing the First Article thereof so that, asamended, said
     Article shall be and read as follows:
     The name of the corporation is USF Corporation (the “Corporation”).
     SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors,a special meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called andheld, upon written waiver of notice signed by all stockholders at which meetingthe necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in favor ofthe amendment.
     THIRD: The said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with theprovisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State ofDelaware.
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said USFreightways Corporation has caused thiscertificate to be signed by Samuel K. Skinner, its President and CEO, thisSecond day of May, 2003.      USFreightways Corporation
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3307]




[[Page 8129]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Bureau of Indian Affairs



_______________________________________________________________________



Wyandot Nation of Kansas; Receipt for Federal Acknowledgment of 
Existence as an Indian Tribe; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / 
Notices 
[[Page 8130]] 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Wyandot Nation of Kansas; Receipt of Petition for Federal 
Acknowledgment of Existence as an Indian Tribe

    This is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the 
Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs by 
209 DM 8.
    Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.8(a) (formerly 25 CFR 54.8(a)) notice is 
hereby given that the

Wyandot Nation of Kansas, c/o George Zane, 5412 Tomahawk Road, Prairie 
Village, Kansas 66208

has filed a petition for acknowledgment by the Secretary of the 
Interior that the group exists as an Indian tribe. The petition was 
received by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) on May 12, 1994, and was 
signed by members of the group's governing body.
    This is a notice of receipt of petition and does not constitute 
notice that the petition is under active consideration. Notice of 
active consideration will be sent by mail to the petitioner and other 
interested parties at the appropriate time.
    Under Sec. 83.8(d) (formerly 54.8(d)) of the Federal regulations, 
interested parties may submit factual and/or legal arguments in support 
of or in opposition to the group's petition. Any information submitted 
will be made available on the same basis as other information in the 
BIA's files. Such submissions will be provided to the petitioner upon 
receipt by the BIA. The petitioner will be provided an opportunity to 
respond to such submissions prior to a final determination regarding 
the petitioner's status.
    The petition may be examined, by appointment, in the Department of 
the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of Acknowledgment and 
Research, Room 1362-MIB, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, 
Phone: (202) 208-3592.

    Dated: January 24, 1995.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 95-3307 Filed 2-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P