alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9695]



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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

San Diego University, Notice of Decision on Application for Duty-
Free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 94-123. Applicant: San Diego University, San Diego, 
CA 92182. Instrument: MicroVolume Stopped-Flow Analyser, Model SX-17MV. 
Manufacturer: Applied Photophysics, United Kingdom.
    Intended Use: See notice at 59 FR 54437, October 31, 1994.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as it is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the 
United States. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides: (1) A vertical 
drive system providing increased optical sensitivity and high signal/
noise, (2) stop syringe operation and (3) non-simultaneous mixing of 
tri-component systems prior to spectral detection. The National 
Institutes of Health advises in its memorandum dated February 16, 1995 
that (1) these capabilities are pertinent to the applicant's intended 
purpose and (2) it knows of no domestic instrument or apparatus of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument for the 
applicant's intended use.
    We know of no other instrument or apparatus of equivalent 
scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being manufactured 
in the United States.


Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 95-9695 Filed 4-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-F
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5196 

To expand protections under the Exceptional Family Member Program of 

the Department of Defense for transgender dependents of members of 

the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 11, 2023 

Mr. PANETTA (for himself, Ms. JACOBS, Mr. MOULTON, Ms. NORTON, Mr. 

VEASEY, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. STRICKLAND, Mr. GALLEGO, Mr. 

NADLER, Mr. LIEU, Ms. TITUS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. POCAN, Mrs. 

HAYES, Ms. SCANLON, and Mr. TORRES of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To expand protections under the Exceptional Family Member 

Program of the Department of Defense for transgender 

dependents of members of the Armed Forces, 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 ‘‘Armed Forces 

5 Transgender Dependent Protection Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5196 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF PROTECTIONS FOR TRANSGENDER 

2 DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

3 FORCES UNDER THE EXCEPTIONAL FAMILY 

4 MEMBER PROGRAM. 

5 Section 1781c of title 10, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (d)(3), by adding at the end 

8 the following new subparagraph: 

9 ‘‘(F) Prohibition of assignment of such a mem10 ber (except at the election of such member) to a per11 manent duty location in a jurisdiction where foreign, 

12 State, or local law restricts medically necessary 

13 treatment for a medical or educational special need. 

14 Such a member who is serving at a permanent duty 

15 location in such a jurisdiction while such government 

16 enacts a law establishing such restriction may, not 

17 later than 30 days after such enactment, elect to be 

18 reassigned by the Secretary concerned to a perma19 nent duty location not located in such a jurisdic20 tion.’’; 

21 (2) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘(as defined 

22 by the Secretary in regulations for purposes of this 

23 section)’’; and 

24 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub25 section: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5196 IH

1 ‘‘(i) MEDICAL OR EDUCATIONAL SPECIAL NEED DE2 FINED.—In this section, the term ‘medical or educational 

3 special need’ includes the following: 

4 ‘‘(1) A potentially life-threatening or chronic 

5 condition that requires— 

6 ‘‘(A) follow-up support more than once a 

7 year; or 

8 ‘‘(B) specialty care. 

9 ‘‘(2) A current and chronic mental health condi10 tion. 

11 ‘‘(3) A frequent need for mental health care. 

12 ‘‘(4) Asthma or other chronic respiratory condi13 tion that includes wheezing. 

14 ‘‘(5) Gender dysphoria. 

15 ‘‘(6) A condition that requires— 

16 ‘‘(A) adaptive equipment; 

17 ‘‘(B) assistive technology devices or serv18 ices; or 

19 ‘‘(C) environmental or architectural consid20 erations. 

21 ‘‘(7) Special educational need.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE STATE OF WASHINGTON,

V. RIVAS,BRIAN DAVID DOB: 08/26/1992, Respondent,

Appellant. No.77269-4-1

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: March 4,2019 SCHINDLER,J.— A jury convicted Brian David Rivas of custodial assault. On July 27,2017,the court sentenced Rivas to 25.5 months of confinement and ordered him to pay the $500 victim assessmentfee,$200 criminal filing fee,and $100 DNA1 collection fee. Rivas challenges the imposition ofthe criminal filing fee and the DNA collection fee. Because Rivas is indigent and the State previously collected a DNA fee,the State concedes the criminal filing fee and the DNA collection fee should be stricken. We acceptthe State's concession as well taken and remand to strike the criminal filing fee and the DNA collection fee. In 2018,the Washington State Legislature amended the legalfinancial obligation statutes. LAWS OF 2018,ch. 269. The amended criminal filing fee statute states: Upon conviction or plea of guilty, upon failure to prosecute an appeal from a court of limited jurisdiction as provided by law, or upon affirmance of a 1 Deoxyribonucleic acid.No.77269-4-1/2

conviction by a court of limited jurisdiction, an adultdefendant in a criminal case shall be liable for a fee oftwo hundred dollars, exceptthis fee shall not be imposed on a defendant who is indigent as defined in RCW 10.101.010(3)(a)through (c). RCW 36.18.020(2)(h). The amended DNA collection fee statute states, in pertinent part: Every sentence imposed for a crime specified in RCW 43.43.754 must include a fee of one hundred dollars unless the state has previously collected the offender's DNA as a result ofa prior conviction. RCW 43.43.7541. In State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732,747,426 P.3d 714 (2018),the Washington Supreme Court held the 2018 amendments to the legal financial obligation statutes apply to cases "pending on direct review and thus notfinal when the amendments were enacted." The State concedes that because Rivas was indigent at the time of sentencing and his DNA has previously been collected as a result ofa priorfelony conviction,the criminal filing fee and the DNA collection fee should be stricken. We acceptthe concession and remand to strike the criminal filing fee and the DNA collection fee from the judgment and sentence.

WE CONCUR:

2
Exhibit 12.1 

**Calculation of Ratioof Earnings to Fixed Charges**

(dollarsin thousands) 

```

                                                        Years ended December 31,
                                               2001        2002        2003        2004        2005

Income before provision / benefit for       $33,504      $2,996     $38,299     $22,231     $91,306
Income Taxes

Fixed Charges                               107,071     117,013     117,235     122,325     129,056
Earnings for Fixed Charges                  140,575     120,009     155,534     143,556     220,362
Interest Expense                             98,270     108,344     106,688     112,013     121,098
Interest Portion of Rental Charges            8,801       8,669      10,547      10,312       7,958
Total                                      $107,071    $117,013    $117,235    $122,325    $129,056

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges              1.3         1.0         1.3         1.2         1.7
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6247

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL SHIRLEY, a/k/a Winston Freeman,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:99-cr-00069-NCT-1; 1:05-cv-00238-NCT-RAE)

Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 1, 2008

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Shirley, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Shirley seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his application for a certificate of appealability to

appeal from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shirley has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5519 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require issuers to disclose 

information on pay raises made to executives and non-executive employees, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require 

issuers to disclose information on pay raises made to 

executives and non-executive employees, 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 ‘‘Greater Accountability 

5 in Pay Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5519 IH

1 SEC. 2. PAY RAISE DISCLOSURES. 

2 Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

3 (15 U.S.C. 78m) is amended by adding at the end the 

4 following: 

5 ‘‘(t) PAY RAISE DISCLOSURES.—An issuer required 

6 to file an annual report under this section or section 15(d), 

7 that is not an emerging growth company, shall include in 

8 such report— 

9 ‘‘(1) the percentage increase in the median of 

10 the annual total compensation of all executive offi11 cers (as such term is defined in section 240.3b–7 of 

12 title 17, Code of Federal Regulations) of the issuer 

13 over the last completed fiscal year; 

14 ‘‘(2) the percentage increase in the median of 

15 the annual total compensation of all employees of 

16 the issuer, excluding executive officers, over the last 

17 completed fiscal year; 

18 ‘‘(3) the ratio of the percentage described in 

19 paragraph (1) to the percentage described in para20 graph (2); 

21 ‘‘(4) a comparison of the percentage described 

22 in paragraph (1) to the percentage change over the 

23 same period in the Consumer Price Index for All 

24 Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor 

25 Statistics of the Department of Labor; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5519 IH

1 ‘‘(5) a comparison of the percentage described 

2 in paragraph (2) to the percentage change over the 

3 same period in the Consumer Price Index for All 

4 Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor 

5 Statistics of the Department of Labor.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10124]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

RTCA, Inc.; Special Committee 187; Mode Select Beacon and Data 
Link System

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(P.L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for Special 
Committee 187 meeting to be held on May 14, 1996, starting at 9:00 a.m. 
The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 
1020, Washington, DC 20036.
    The agenda will be as follows: (1) Introductory Remarks; (2) Review 
and Approval of the Agenda; (3) Review and Approval of the Summary of 
the Previous Meeting; (4) Complete the Review of Change 2 to RTCA/DO-
181A; (5) Detailed Review of Change 1 to RTCA/DO-218; (6) Other 
Business; (7) Date and Place of Next Meeting.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1020, Washington, D.C. 20036; 
(202) 833-9339 (phone) or (202) 833-9434 (fax). Members of the public 
may present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on April 19, 1996.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 96-10124 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-3609

___________________________

Simon Choch

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

 ____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

 ____________

 Submitted: October 3, 2019

Filed: October 11, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Simon Choch petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s order finding him removable for having

committed an aggravated felony; and denying him cancellation of removal, asylum,

withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against

Torture. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) to review
constitutional claims or questions of law, including whether a conviction qualifies as

an aggravated felony, and after careful consideration of the petition, this court finds

no basis for reversal. 

The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
1

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Gonzalo Sosa v. Julio Garcia

Appellate case number: 01-13-01033-CV

Trial court case number: 1036389

Trial court: County Civil Court No. 1 of Harris County

On May 8, 2014, we dismissed this appeal for want of prosecution after appellant 

did not respond to the Court’s notice that this appeal was subject to dismissal for failure 

to timely file a brief. On May 20, 2014, appellant, Gonzalo Sosa, filed this motion for 

rehearing, along with his appellate brief and second motion to extend time to file brief, 

requesting that we accept the filing of his attached brief. Appellant’s counsel explains 

that he failed to timely file his brief by March 27, 2014, because his office had a 

complete crash of his computerized system that required an overhaul of his system and 

his office was relocated within the building, resulting in a loss of calendaring and a 

substantial part of his research. Appellee, Julio Garza, opposes both motions because 

appellant is essentially seeking reinstatement of his appeal that was dismissed, not a 

rehearing. We construe the appellant’s motion as one to reinstate the appeal, grant it, and 

withdraw this Court’s May 8, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Judgment.

If an appellant fails to timely file a brief, we may dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not 

significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1). However, the Texas Supreme Court has “instructed the courts of appeals to 

construe the Rules of Appellate Procedure reasonably, yet liberally, so that the right to 

appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to effect the purpose 

of a rule.” Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex. 1997). Thus, appellant’s 

counsel’s explanation is reasonable because it was neither deliberate nor intentional 

noncompliance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); Hone v. Hanafin, 104 S.W.3d 884, 887 

(Tex. 2003) (per curiam). Furthermore, the appellee is not significantly injured because 
2

appellant timely filed his motion for rehearing while attaching his brief. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.8(a)(1), 49.1.

Accordingly, we grant the appellant’s motion for rehearing construed as a motion 

to reinstate the appeal, reinstate the appeal, withdraw this Court’s May 8, 2014 

Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, and direct the Clerk of this Court to accept 

appellant’s brief for filing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.3. Appellee’s brief, if any, must be 

filed within 30 days from the date of this order. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 38.6(b). We 

dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown

Date: August 19, 2014
#### Helen Janice SIMMONS, Appellant, v. Harrison Gail SIMMONS, Respondent and Harrison & Cloeta Simmons, Intervenors-Respondents.

No. WD 42024.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 6, 1990.

Charles M. LeCompte, Springfield, for appellant.

Lawrence R. McClure, Marshall, for respondent and intervenors-respondents.

Before GAITAIN, P.J., and CLARK and MANFORD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment modifying a divorce decree as to child custody.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C., ss.1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Smartpay Express, Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Smartpay Express
Inc.








Date: May
      19, 2008
            By
            /s/
      Zheng WangZheng
      WangInterim
      Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Cardinal Financial Corporation (the “Company”),I, Bernard H. Clineburg, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(a)           the Form 10-Q fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

 

(b)           the information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial conditionand results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of, and for,the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

 
| Date:  August 8, 2008 | /s/  Bernard H. Clineburg             |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                       | Bernard  H. Clineburg                 |
|                       | Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19964-19965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9865]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences; Committee of 
Visitors; Meeting

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

    Name: Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences; Committee of 
Visitors.
    Date and Time: Monday, May 8 through Tuesday, May 9, 1995; 8:30 
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: The National Science Foundation, Rooms 630 and 680, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. James H. Brown, Division Director for 
Biological Instrumentation and Resources, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. 
Telephone: 703-306-1470.
    Purpose of Meeting: To carry out Committee of Visitors (COV) 
review, [[Page 19965]] including examination of decisions on 
proposals, reviewer comments, and other privileged materials.
    Agenda: To provide oversight review of the Instrumentation and 
Instrument Development and the Field Stations and Marine 
Laboratories Programs in the Division of Biological Instrumentation 
and Resources.
    Reason for Closing: The meeting is closed to the public because 
the Committee is reviewing proposal actions that will include 
privileged intellectual property and personal information that could 
harm individuals if they are disclosed. If discussions were open to 
the public, these matters that are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) 
and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act would be improperly 
disclosed.

    Dated: April 17, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-9865 Filed 4-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Order filed October 25 , 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00374

- CV

____________ MISHA FERGUSON ET AL , Appellant

V.
QIAO ZHOU ET AL , Appellee

On Appeal from Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1073353



### ORDER

On October 4 , 2016, this court issued an order to the Harris County District Clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record by October 14 , 2016. The court has not received the supplemental clerk’s record.
The Harris County Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on
or before November 4 , 2016 , containing the notice of appeal

. If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted
item is not a part of the case file
PER CURIAM