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

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Presidential Documents 10793

Memorandum of February 16, 1995

Delegation of Certain Presidential Authorities Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and Related Appropriations

Legislation

Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the Administrator of the

Agency for International Development

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of

the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3 of the United

States Code, I hereby delegate as follows certain authorities vested in the

President:

(A) the functions under section 607 of the Foreign Assistance Act of

1961, as amended (FAA), to the Secretary of State and to the Administrator

of the Agency for International Development, respectively, for matters within

their respective areas of responsibility; and

(B) the functions in the first proviso under the heading ‘‘Population,

Development Assistance,’’ contained in title II of the Foreign Operations,

Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public

Law 103–306), and in comparable provisions in successor legislation, to

the Secretary of State relating to those organizations and programs for which

the Secretary of State has funding responsibility.

The delegations of authority described in subparagraph (A) are in addition

to other delegations of such authority to the International Development

Cooperation Agency.

The delegation of authority described above in subparagraph (B) shall be

exercised in lieu of the delegation of the comparable authority to the Administrator of the Agency for International Development by section 1–102(a)(7)

of Executive Order No. 12163, as amended.

Any reference in this memorandum to any Act, order, determination, or

delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such Act,

order, determination, or delegation of authority as amended from time to

time.

The functions delegated by this memorandum may be redelegated within

the Department of State or the Agency for International Development, as

appropriate.

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the 

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, February 16, 1995.

Federal Register.

œ–

[FR Doc. 95–5076

Filed 2–24–95; 4:05 pm]

Billing code 4710–10–M
EXHIBIT 23.2


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-3 (No. 333-106608, No. 333-108924, No. 333-10754, No.
333-110752, No. 333-82496, No. 333-91225, No. 333-91235, No. 333-133291 and No.
333-17105) and Form S-8 (No. 333-109595 and No. 33-82410) of our report dated
March 5, 2004 relating to the Consolidated Financial Statements of SpatiaLight,
Inc., which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/BDO

BDO Seidman, LLP

San Francisco, California
April 26, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

SHANE HOLLOWAY,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 188 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of February , 2019, the Petition for Leave to File Notice of

Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and GraphsUpdated May 3, 2006   |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|

| Cost-of-Living Adjustment | Description of Proposed Provision:      Beginning December 2006, use the superlative (or chained) CPI for COLAs, estimated to reduce the COLA by 0.22 percentage point |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                           |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2005 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map |
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51283 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BERNARDINO GARCIA-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-1160-ALL-PM

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Bernardino Garcia-Alvarez appeals his sentence for possession with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. He argues that the waiver-of-appeal provision in his plea agreement is invalid and that the court clearly erred in denying him a two-level reduction in his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The district court did not explain the waiver-of-appeal provision to Garcia at the guilty-plea hearing to insure that United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 22, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-51283 -2- Garcia understood the consequences of the waiver, nor did the court ask him whether he had read the plea agreement and understood it. See United States v. Robinson , 187 F.3d 516, 517 (5th Cir. 1999). Therefore, the waiver was not knowingly and voluntarily made. See id

. The district court did not misapply the guidelines nor clearly err in determining that Garcia was not entitled to an adjustment based on his role in the offense. Garcia has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there was another person involved in the offense. See United States v. Brown , 54 F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir. 1995); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.2). Nor has he provided any evidence to rebut the probation officer’s finding that there was no information to substantiate or corroborate the existence of a more culpable person in this transaction. Therefore, it was not clear error for the court to adopt that finding. See Brown , 54 F.3d at 241.
AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 7784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03016]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD16-16-000]


Implementation Issues Under the Public Utility Regulatory 
Policies Act of 1978; Notice of Technical Conference

    Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission plans to 
hold a technical conference in the above-captioned docket on 
implementation issues under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act 
of 1978, 16 U.S.C. 796(17)-(18), 824a-3 (2012) (PURPA). The technical 
conference will take place on June 29, 2016. The conference will be 
held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The technical conference will be webcast and 
transcribed.
    Further information concerning topics and speakers, as well as 
matters relevant to the organization of the technical conference, will 
be provided at a later date in supplemental notices.

    Dated: February 9, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03016 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,324
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       40
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         75
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,452
<PP&E>                                             157
<DEPRECIATION>                                      88
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              203
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,794
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,533
<SALES>                                            176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   176
<CGS>                                              141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,029
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   183
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,177)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,179)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,179)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)


</TABLE>
.-.pEEICIAL N01ICE-EROM.qOJJRT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS UhMMfB©&%'&8!R&Hm sjAirioN,^^s|p^K^& im-POST,

STATE OF TEXAS

PENALTY FOR

PRIVATE USE

pOSTAGE»PITNEYBOWES

5/11/2015 JJ ;

HINOJOSA, EDWARD Tr.'Ct NjOJp42i35JA WR-82,619-02

On this day, this Court has granted tneTnaJ court's request for an extension of time

to file the supplemental record The supplemental record is due in this Court on

Monday, July 27, 2015. " v^LiA

^ Abel Acosta, Clerk

>x

ZIP 78701

02 m

0001401623 MAY. 12. 2015

EDWARD HINOJOSA

BETO I UNIT - TDC # 1388352

1391 FM3328

TENNESSEE COLONY, TX 75880

UTF

-1EBN3B "5880 |JI||,I,||J.||II1..„||.,I.II.|.,I|"I||II.I|'I"|'|||'""'I||"
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8038

BILLY WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-01-69-2) Submitted: February 5, 2002 Decided: February 13, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Billy Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). Williams’ case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Williams that failureto file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Williams failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Williams has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### STATE v. ROBERT HUGHES.

(Filed 8 May, 1957.)

Appeal by defendant from *Rousseau, J.,*at 22 October, 1956 Criminal Term of Guileoed.

Criminal prosecution upon a warrant issued out of Municipal County Court, Criminal Division, of Guilford, charging that defendant “did unlawfully, willfully drive a vehicle upon the highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and narcotic drugs,” etc.

*220The case was first tried in said County Court when and where he was found guilty, and sentenced to 4 months on roads, suspended upon payment of $100.00 and costs. Defendant appealed therefrom to Superior Court.

Upon trial in Superior Court the State offered the testimony of an officer tending to support the charge against defendant. On the other hand, defendant testified, and offered testimony of another tending to challenge the probative force of the evidence offered by the State. The case was then submitted to the jury under charge of the court.

Verdict: Guilty as charged.

Judgment: That defendant be confined in common jail of Guilford County for a period of four months and assigned to work on the roads under supervision of the State Highway and Public Works Commission, as provided by law.

Defendant excepted thereto, and appeals therefrom to Supreme Court and assigns error.

*Attorney-General Patton and Assistant Attorney-General Love for the State.*

*Elreta Melton Alexander for Defendant Appellant.*

Per CüRIam.

In this Court defendant appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence offered upon trial in Superior Court to take the case to the jury on the charge made, and to support the verdict rendered. Assignment III relating to denial of motions for judgment as of nonsuit is not discussed in brief.

And while the record of case on appeal shows that defendant took many exceptions to questions asked, and remarks made by the presiding, judge in the course of the trial, it is apparent that neither the questions nor the remarks cast any reflection upon defendant, or deprived him of fair representation in the trial. It is clear that the court was trying to expedite in normal way a trial pervaded with dilatoriness. The manner in which the trial was conducted fails to show prejudicial error in any respect.

Moreover, a contextual reading of the charge indicates that the case was presented to the jury in adequate and understandable language, free from harmful error.

Hence in the judgment from which appeal is taken there is

No error.
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 23.1
 
         CONSENT OF COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P., INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
  We consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of our report,
which includes an explanatory paragraph relating to substantial doubt about
the entity's ability to continue as a going concern, dated January 16, 1998,
except for Note 10 for which the date is January 26, 1998 and Note 12 for
which the date is March 2, 1998, on our audits of the financial statements and
financial statement schedule of ChemTrak Incorporated as of December 31, 1997
and for the year then ended.
 
  We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of ChemTrak Incorporated (Forms S-8, File Numbers 33-55326, 33-
45912, 33-82784, 333-39807 and Form S-3, File Number 333-46745) of our report,
which includes an explanatory paragraph relating to substantial doubt about
the entity's ability to continue as a going concern, dated January 16, 1998,
except for Note 10 for which the date is January 26, 1998 and Note 12 for
which the date is March 2, 1998, with respect to the financial statements of
ChemTrak Incorporated included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 1997.
 
                                          COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
 
San Jose, California
March 3, 1998
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1658

EQI, Ltd: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-1690

Norland International:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3728 

To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to reauthorize 

the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area, Cache La Poudre National 

Heritage Area, and South Park National Heritage Area in the State 

of Colorado, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2, 2022 

Mr. BENNET (for himself and Mr. HICKENLOOPER) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 

2009 to reauthorize the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area, Cache La Poudre National Heritage Area, 

and South Park National Heritage Area in the State 

of Colorado, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Colorado National 

5 Heritage Areas Reauthorization Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3728 IS

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL HERIT2 AGE AREAS IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. 

3 (a) SANGRE DE CRISTO NATIONAL HERITAGE

4 AREA.—Section 8001(i) of the Omnibus Public Land 

5 Management Act of 2009 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public 

6 Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1229) is amended by striking ‘‘the 

7 date that is 15 years after the date of enactment of this 

8 Act’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2036’’. 

9 (b) CACHE LA POUDRE NATIONAL HERITAGE

10 AREA.—Section 8002(i) of the Omnibus Public Land 

11 Management Act of 2009 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public 

12 Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1234) is amended by striking ‘‘the 

13 date that is 15 years after the date of enactment of this 

14 Act’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2036’’. 

15 (c) SOUTH PARK NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.—Sec16 tion 8003(i) of the Omnibus Public Land Management 

17 Act of 2009 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 111– 

18 11; 123 Stat. 1240) is amended by striking ‘‘the date that 

19 is 15 years after the date of enactment of this Act’’ and 

20 inserting ‘‘September 30, 2036’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: A.V.C., A MINOR

PETITION OF: E.L.E., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

No. 64 WM 2023

IN RE: S.B.W.,A MINOR

PETITION OF: E.L.E., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

No. 65 WM 2023

IN RE: M.E.C., A MINOR

PETITION OF: E.L.E., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

No. 66 WM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of December, 2023, the “Petition to Allow Appeal/Appeal 

Nunc Pro Tunc” is DENIED.
* 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. 95-20293

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ALOYSIUS, also known as

Michael Amadi,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-H-93-0250

- - - - - - - - - -

February 2, 1996

Before JOHNSON, KING, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Aloysius appeals from his judgment of conviction and

the district court's denial of his motion for new trial. 

Aloysius argues that the search of his bedroom violated the

Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and

seizures, that the district court erred by refusing to suppress

his oral statements to government agents after he was taken into

custody, that government agents lacked reasonable suspicion to

conduct a nonroutine border search of his briefcase at the 
No. 95-20293

-2-

airport, that the evidence was insufficient to support his

convictions, that the district court abused its discretion by

denying his motion for new trial based upon newly discovered

evidence, that the district court abused its discretion by

denying his motion for a continuance, that the district court's

alleged racial comments against Nigerians constituted reversible

error, that the district court erred by failing to instruct the

jury on the definition of the term "willfully," and that the

district court's reasonable-doubt instruction was in error. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.