alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8555]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental 
Systems; Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name and Committee Code: Special Emphasis Panel in 
Bioengineering and Environmental System (#1189).
    Date and Time: April 27-28, 1995; 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
    Place: Room 320, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Fred G. Heineken, Program Director, Biochemical 
Engineering and Biotechnology, Room 565, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 
(703) 306-1319.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Biosystems Analysis and Control 
(BAC) proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 3, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-8555 Filed 4-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**
I, Michael R. Stanford, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of First State Bancorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) (Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and34-47986);  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date: March 12, 2004 /s/ Michael R. Stanford   Michael R. Stanford   President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Jazek L. WINSTEAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51084.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 18, 1996.

Susan L. Hogan, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Michael W. Bradley, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the denial of Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an eviden-tiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roger Council, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel Sullivan, *J.),*rendered on February 11, 1981, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree and resentencing him on May 11, 1983, upon his violation of probation, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from *2 Vs*to 7 years, is unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s assigned counsel discovered that the plea minutes were missing. In motion papers dated November 20, 1989, *366he moved for a reconstruction hearing. In an order dated December 28, 1989, this court denied defendant’s motion with leave to renew upon a proper showing of the nature of the issues which counsel would raise on appeal if reconstruction of the minutes was ordered. Defendant never availed himself of the opportunity to renew. He now contends that he is entitled to reversal of his conviction since his efforts to discern appellate issues were fruitless, and this court has made a reconstruction hearing unavailable *(People v Glass,*43 NY2d 283, 286). However, defendant has failed to rebut the presumption of regularity by demonstrating the existence of appealable issues and he is, therefore, neither entitled to a reversal nor a remand for a reconstruction hearing *(People v Lopez,*97 AD2d 5, 7). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6755
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLEMENT CHAVIS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CR-87-61, CA-96-184-5) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clement Chavis, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Talore Morris, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Chavis , Nos. CR-87-61; CA-96- 184-5 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 18, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Marcus L. Williams, 

Plaintiff, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED 

AUG 2,6 2010 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. l D - \ 4 4- ~ U tJADepartment of the Air Force and 

the Secretary of the Air Force 

Michael B. Donley, 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed 

in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff s application and dismiss the complaint on the 

ground of res judicata. 

Under the principle of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits in one action "bars any 

further claim based on the same 'nucleus of facts' .... " Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818, 

820 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quoting Expert Elec., Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.2d 1227, 1234 (D.C. Cir. 

1977)). Res judicata bars the relitigation "of issues that were or could have been raised in [the 

prior] action." Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (quoting Allen 

v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)); see I.A.M Nat 'I Pension Fund v. Indus. Gear Mfg. Co., 

723 F.2d 944, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (noting that res judicata "forecloses all that which might 

have been litigated previously"). 

The current complaint "for declaration of in personam status" is mostly unclear but 

plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that the Air Force acted contrary to law in suspending "his 

Date of Separation ... occurring on 28 December, 2001 ... which procured an collateral U.S. 
Armed Forces in personam status into the membership class of persons, whom are: 'awaiting 

discharge after expiration of term of enlistment'." CompI. at 11. In Williams v. United States, 

the Court of Federal Claims decided 

(1) whether the Air Force had the authority to extend Mr. Williams' term of service 

beyond his [expiration term of service] and whether the Air Force properly invoked 

that authority, and (2) whether the dishonorable discharge that resulted from Mr. 

Williams' court-martial was a proper predicate for the forfeiture of any leave that Mr. 

Williams had accrued. 

71 Fed. Cl. 194,201 (2006). It resolved those questions in the Air Force's favor. See id. at 201-

02. In the earlier case, as it seems here, plaintiff had contended that the Air Force lacked 

"authority to separate him from service on October 1, 2004 and to classify his discharge as 

dishonorable" because his term had expired on December 28,2001. Id. at 195. Plaintiff cannot 

litigate that claim anew. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

Uni 

Date: August~, 2010 

2
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6443

DENSO International America, 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 this particular product is available 

only from China.

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

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                 XACT AID, INC.

                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 Xact Aid, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles Miseroy, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.

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

Dated: February 21, 2006

Charles Miseroy
Chief Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5445 

To provide for the designation of the Guam and Western Pacific USDA 

Rural Development office as the representative of USDA Rural Development in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

American Samoa, and the Freely Associated States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. MOYLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for the designation of the Guam and Western 

Pacific USDA Rural Development office as the representative of USDA Rural Development in Guam, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the Freely Associated States. 

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 ‘‘Designating the Guam 

5 and Western Pacific USDA Rural Development Office 

6 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5445 IH

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF THE GUAM AND WESTERN PA2 CIFIC USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE. 

3 Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of 

4 this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Undersecre5 tary for Rural Development shall designate the Guam and 

6 Western Pacific USDA Rural Development office to be the 

7 representative of USDA Rural Development in Guam, the 

8 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Amer9 ican Samoa, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Palau, 

10 and the Federated States of Micronesia, and shall delegate 

11 to that office the same rights and responsibilities as are 

12 delegated to the USDA Rural Development office for any 

13 State. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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-2018-0025-6750

Apex Sourcing & Manufacturing: 

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-896]



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



DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency Information Collection Under OMB Review

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to 
extend the prior approval of the paperwork burden associated with the 
application required for the STATE DEPENDENT CARE GRANTS PROGRAM. This 
request is being made to extend the approval period from April of 1995 
to April 1998. There is no change in the previously approved paperwork 
burden.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the request for approval may be obtained from 
Robert A. Sargis of the Office of Information Systems Management, ACF, 
by calling (202) 690-7275.
    Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions received 
within 60 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for 
the proposed information should be sent directly to the following: 
Wendy Taylor, OMB Desk Officer for ACF, New Executive Office Building, 
Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7316.

Information on Document

Title: Application for the State Dependent Care Grants Program
OMB No.:
Description: This application is used to determine States and 
Territories' eligibility for Federal funds under the State Dependent 
Care Grants Program.
Respondents: States and Territories
Annual Number of Respondents: 57 sites
Number of responses per respondent: 1
Total annual responses: 57 sites
Hours per response: 20
Total Burden Hours: 1,140.

    Dated: January 5, 1995.
Larry Guerrero,
Deputy Director, Office of Information Systems Management.
[FR Doc. 95-896 Filed 1-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ernest SPALDING, Appellant.

No. 68746.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Nov. 19, 1996.

Robert A. Ciuffa, Clayton, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David R. Truman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and GRIMM and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree pursuant to § 566.100 RSMo 1991 Cum.Supp. In this appeal, Defendant asserts that he was prejudiced by the admission of rebuttal evidence of Defendant’s prior sexual misconduct, the admission of expert testimony on the profile of sexually abused children, the disallowance of a portion of Defendant’s own testimony, and the admission of statements made by the victim.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
Exhibit 32.1



Certifications Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



In
connection with the Quarterly Report (the “report”) of Sydys Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Kenneth J. Koock, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. § 1350), that to his knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | /s/ Kenneth J. Koock                               
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Kenneth J. Koock                                   
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Date:  August 20, 2012
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David H. POWELL, Appellant.

No. WD 42059.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 30, 1990.

Raymond L. Legg, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Frank A. Jung, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before NUGENT, C.J., FENNER, J., and WASSERSTROM, Senior Judge.

FENNER, Judge.

Appellant, David H. Powell, appeals his conviction of selling marijuana, in violation of § 195.020, RSMo 1986. Appellant had been charged by way of a felony information with selling marijuana to Eric Protz-man.

Eric Protzman was an undercover police officer for the City of St. Joseph, Missouri. The State’s evidence at trial was that on December 31, 1987, appellant sold marijuana to Officer Protzman. At the time of the sale Officer Protzman was working with another undercover officer by the name of John Kessler. The State presented evidence that after appellant sold marijuana to Officer Protzman, appellant sold marijuana to Officer Kessler.

Even though appellant had been charged with selling marijuana to Eric Protzman the jury was instructed at the conclusion of the evidence that they were to find appellant guilty if they found that he had sold marijuana to John Kessler. Appellant argues that the crime as submitted to the jury was fatally in variance to the crime charged by the information. Appellant further argues that to remand the cause for a new trial would be in violation of the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. The State has filed a motion conceding that there was a fatal variance between the information and the instructions. The State asks that the cause be remanded for new trial.

When an information charges one crime and a new and distinct offense is *490submitted to the jury from that from which a defendant was charged, the variance is fatal. *State v. Coleman,*660 S.W.2d 201, 218 (Mo.App.1983). The variance between the information and the offense submitted to the jury in the case at bar was reversible error.

The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects a defendant from repeated prosecutions for the same offense, but does not guarantee to a defendant that the State will vindicate its societal interest in the enforcement of the criminal laws in one proceeding. *Oregon v. Kennedy,*456 U.S. 667, 671-72, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 2087-88, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against double jeopardy protects a person who has been acquitted from being tried again for the same crime. *Ashe v. Swenson,*397 U.S. 436, 445-46, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1195-96, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). The double jeopardy clause imposes no limitation upon the power of the State to retry a defendant who has succeeded in persuading a court to set his conviction aside, unless the conviction has been reversed because of the insufficiency of the evidence. *Oregon v. Kennedy,*456 U.S. at 676, 102 S.Ct. at 2089.

Appellant’s conviction is reversed and this cause is remanded for a new trial.

All concur.