alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kenny HAMILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 50906.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 9, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 27,1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Oct. 22,1996.

Jeannie M. Arterburn, Assistant Public Defender, Kansas City, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before EDWIN H. SMITH, P. J., and BRECKENRIDGE and ELLIS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*ORDER*

Appeal from the denial of Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, following an evidentiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3895 

To extend and authorize annual appropriations for the United States 

Commission on International Religious Freedom through fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2022 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. RISCH, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. 

LANKFORD, and Mr. COONS) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To extend and authorize annual appropriations for the 

United States Commission on International Religious 

Freedom through fiscal year 2024. 

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 ‘‘United States Commis5 sion on International Religious Freedom Reauthorization 

6 Act of 2022’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3895 IS

1 SEC. 2. UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL 

2 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 

3 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

4 205(a) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 

5 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6435(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘2019 

6 through 2022’’ and inserting ‘‘2023 and 2024’’. 

7 (b) EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION.—Section 209 of 

8 the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 

9 U.S.C. 6436) is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 

10 2022’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2024’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

October 12, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1944

Poly Tech Industries, Inc.:

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 failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. JORGE ROCA-SUAREZ, AKA George Roca, AKA Jorge Roca, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-50074 D.C. No. 2:90-cr-00877-SVW-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 5, 2013 ** Pasadena, California Before: GOODWIN, FISHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Jorge Roca-Suarez appeals from the distri ct court’s denial of motions (1) to correct sentence pursuant to Federal Ru le of Criminal Procedure 35(a); (2) to correct sentence pursuant to a petition for wr it of audita querela ; and (3) for relief 

# FILED
DEC 03 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The district court granted a certificate of appealability fo r the first two claims but not the third. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court lacked jurisdicti on over Roca’s Rule 35(a) motion because it was untimely. Under the 1987 amendment to Rule 35(a), a court may correct a sentence with 14 days after sentencing. Th e amended version of the rule applied to Roca because the criminal activity for which he was convicted under Count I continued after the effective da te of the amended Rule 35(a). United States v. Henrique , 988 F.2d 85, 86 (9th Cir. 1993). Extraordinary relief via a petition for writ of audita querela is not available just because the desired relief woul d not be obtained under section 2255. Tripati v. Henman , 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1988). A defendant may not bring a writ of audita querela where the claim is c ognizable in a section 2255 habeas petition. Carrington v. United States , 503 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that statutory limits or cases that are not a pplied retroactively are subject to review under section 2255). That Roca cannot bring a second or successive petition without this court’s permission does not change that. See Lorentsen v. Hood , 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating thatsection 2255 remedy is not “inadequate or ineffective” merely because section 2255's gate-keeping provisions prevent the
2petitioner from filing a second or successive petition). Roca did not obtain permission from this court so the district court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate his application for relief. Furthermore, Roca should not be granted permission to file a successive petition to present the same Apprendi argument that was previously denied by the district court in an order affirmed by our court. We deny Roca’s application for a certif icate of appealability for his Rule 60(b) argument. APPEAL DISMISSED
.

3
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3809]



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


COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Alabama Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that the Alabama 
Advisory Committee to the Commission will meet on Wednesday, March 15, 
1995, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Tutwiler Hotel, Park Place and 
21st Street North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203. The purpose of the 
meeting is program planning.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Melvin L. Jenkins, Director of the 
Central Regional Office, 816-426-5253 (TTY 816-426-5009). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least five (5) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, February 7, 1995.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit
[FR Doc. 95-3809 Filed 2-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BIOSHIELD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THE 3 MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      $5,739,061
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,908
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    172,719
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,040,188
<PP&E>                                         122,072
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,158,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,303,599
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,644,057
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,788,924)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,158,732
<SALES>                                         87,854
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,854
<CGS>                                           33,736
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  114,379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               297,784
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (373,562)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (373,562)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (373,562)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.08)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Diluted loss per common share is not disclosed because the effect of the 
exchange or exercise of common stock equivalents would be antidilutive
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1




















Independent Accountant’s Report





Merrill Lynch Municipal ABS, Inc. (as Depositor)


c/o Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated


One Bryant Park


1111 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor


New York, New York 10036






Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (as Trustee)


60 Wall Street


New York, New York  10005






Re:           Prerefunded Municipal Certificates, Series 2 and Series 3 (the “Certificates”)








Ladies and Gentlemen:





We have examined management’s assertions that the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material respects, with the provisions of the Trust Agreement of Prerefunded Municipal Certificates, Series 2 and Series 3 dated as of March 28, 1995 (the "Trust Agreement"), during the periods covered by the annual report on Form 10-K, filed by the Depositor on behalf of the Trust for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2011 (the “Annual Report”).  Management is responsible for compliance with the Trust Agreement. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertions based on our examination.





Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Depositor’s and the Trustee’s compliance with the Trust Agreement and performing such other procedures as considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.





In our opinion, the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material respects, with the Trust Agreement during the period covered by the Annual Report and management’s assertions with respect to such compliance are fairly stated, in all material respects, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2011.











/s/ Aston Bell CPA




New York, New York


March 20, 2012
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40146 Summary Calendar

SANDY DICKERSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
OWEN JOSEPH MURRAY; UNKNOWN DOCTORS AND OFFICIALS, At University of Texas Medical Branch

– Galveston; DOCTOR TARRY; KELLY WALLACE , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court f

or the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:11

- CV

- 200

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Sandy Dickerson, Texas prisoner # 1483568, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se civil rights complaint. Dickerson is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because, on at least three prior occasions while incarcerated, he has brought a civil action in a court of the United States that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 1, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40146 Document: 00512789760 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/01/2014No. 14

- 40146
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be grante d. See Dickerson v. Anderson , No. 4:07

- CV

- 0009 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2007) (dismiss ing civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim); Dickerson v. Tarrant County Jail , No.
4:06

- CV

- 0793 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2006) (dismiss ing civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim); Dickerson v. Tarrant County Jail , No. 4:06

- CV

- 0743 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2006) (dism issing civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim). Further, the record does not reflect that Dickerson is “under imminent danger of seri ous physical injury.” § 1915(g). Accordingly, Dickerson’s IFP status is decertified, and the appeal is dismissed. Dickerson has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full appellate filing fee to the clerk of the district court, should h e wish to reinstate his appeal.
IFP DECERTIFIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

2 Case: 14-40146 Document: 00512789760 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/01/2014
13602 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Secretary’s Order 2–95]

Delegation of Authority and

Assignment of Responsibility to the

Assistant Secretary for the American

Workplace for Executive Order 12954,

Ensuring the Economical and Efficient

Administration and Completion of

Federal Government Contracts

March 8, 1995.

1. Purpose. To delegate the authority

and assign the responsibility in the

Department of Labor for the

implementation and administration of

the Secretary of Labor’s responsibilities

under Executive Order 12954, Ensuring

the Economical and Efficient

Administration and Completion of

Federal Government Contracts, which

established the policy that contracting

agencies in the Executive Branch shall

not contract with employers that

permanently replace lawfully striking

employees.

2. Authority and Directives Affected.

a. Authority. This Order is issued

pursuant to Executive Order 12954,

dated March 8, 1995; the Act of March

4, 1913 (29 U.S.C. 551 et seq.); and 5

U.S.C. 301 and 302.

b. Directives Affected. The authority

delegated herein is in addition to that

delegated to the Assistant Secretary for

the American Workplace in Secretary’s

Order 2–93, which Order remains in

effect.

3. Background. Efficient economic

performance and productivity are

directly related to the existence of

cooperative working relationships

between employers and employees.

When federal contractors permanently

replace their striking employees, the

Federal Government’s efficiency and

cost of operations are adversely affected.

In order to operate as effectively as

possible, by receiving timely goods and

quality services from contracting

agencies, Executive Order 12954

requires that contracting agencies of the

Executive Branch shall not contract

with employers that permanently

replace lawfully striking employees.

Section 6 of the Executive Order assigns

the responsibility for the administration

and enforcement of the Executive Order

to the Secretary of Labor.

4. Delegation of Authority and

Assignment of Responsibility.

a. The Assistant Secretary for the

American Workplace is hereby

delegated authority and assigned

responsibility, vested in the Secretary of

Labor, for carrying out the policies,

programs, and activities under

Executive Order 12954.

b. The Solicitor of Labor shall have

the responsibility for providing legal

advice and assistance to all officers of

the Department of Labor relating to the

implementation and enforcement of this

Order and the Executive Order.

5. Redelegation of Authority. The

authority delegated and responsibilities

herein assigned may be further

redelegated. Any transfer of functions to

other components of the Department of

Labor shall be made pursuant to an

appropriate agreement with the

approval of the agency head(s) involved.

6. Effective Date. This Order is

effective immediately.

Robert B. Reich,

Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 95–6189 Filed 3–9–95; 9:59 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–23–M
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 129837 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. 

### Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman, Justices 

### v SC: 129837 COA: 262165 Genesee CC: 98-003756-FC GERMAIN SKINNER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to a ppeal the October 21, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0320 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 27, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit 10.59

                           Extract from Resolutions Approved
                            by the Board of Directors of
                           SPS Transaction Services, Inc.
                                 on April 29, 1997



RESOLVED, that Appendix A of the SPS Transaction Services, Inc. (the "Company")
Amended and Restated Tax Deferred Equity Participation Plan ("TDEPP") is hereby
amended and restated to read as follows:

                                   APPENDIX A

                                 Amount of Awards
                                 ----------------

           Effective for annual incentive bonuses awarded for 1997 and
      subsequent years, the amount of a Participant's Award shall be an
      amount equal to the sum of:  (1) 20% of the first $250,000 of the
      Participant's bonus awarded under an annual incentive plan
      maintained by a Company and selected by the Board; (2) 30% of the
      amount of such bonus award which exceeds $250,000, but does not
      exceed $500,000; and (3) 40% of the amount of such bonus award
      which exceeds $500,000.

           Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no Award
      shall exceed an amount which would cause a Participant's
      Compensation minus the Award to be less than the Minimum Eligible
      Compensation and no Award shall be granted in an amount less than
      $1,000.


FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer or
any Senior Vice President of the Company be, and each of them hereby is,
authorized to take any and all actions which they deem necessary or appropriate
to carry out the purposes and intents of the foregoing resolution and to make,
execute and deliver or cause to be made executed and delivered, all agreements,
undertakings, documents, instruments or certificates in the name and on behalf
of the Company as they may deem necessary or desirable in connection herewith,
to perform or cause to be performed, the obligations of the Company referred to
herein.

                                  * * * * * * *
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 47 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5584]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. GT95-25-000]


Algonquin Gas Transmission Company; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

March 6, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 1, 1995, Algonquin Gas Transmission 
Company (Algonquin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets:

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 1100
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 1101
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 1102
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 1103
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 1104
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 1105
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 1106
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 1107
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 1108
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 1109

    The proposed effective date of the tariff sheets is April 1, 1995.
    Algonquin states that the purpose of this filing is to revise 
Algonquin's index of purchasers.
    Algonquin states that copies of this filing were served upon each 
affected party and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before March 13, 1995. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5584 Filed 3-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M