alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 112 (Monday, June 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 31547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12434]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11440]


Notice of Public Meeting

    As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the Department of State gives notice of a meeting of the Advisory 
Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services. This Committee 
will meet virtually on Thursday, July 15, 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 
p.m. Eastern Time, hosted on a Webex platform, meeting number 199 494 
5652, code ddMnU572653 (33668572 from phones).
    Members of the public interested in providing input to the meeting 
should contact Ms. Shereece Robinson, whose contact information is 
listed below (see the for further information section of this notice). 
Individuals providing oral input are requested to limit their comments 
to five minutes. Requests to be added to the speakers list must be 
received in writing (by email) prior to the close of business on 
Thursday, July 8, 2021; written comments from members of the public for 
distribution at this meeting must reach Ms. Robinson by email on this 
same date. Requests received after that date, including any requests 
for reasonable accommodation, will be considered but might not be able 
to be fulfilled.
    The agenda of the meeting will focus on U.S. positions on issues 
for the 27th Congress of the Universal Postal Union, currently 
scheduled for August 9-27 in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire. Issues under 
consideration at the Congress include modifications to the rules of 
procedure to allow hybrid (i.e., mixed virtual and physically present) 
Congresses, the opening of the UPU to wider postal sector actors, 
reform of the system of member states' contributions, and 
interpretation of the 2019 Geneva accord on compensation for E-format 
items.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Ms. Shereece Robinson 
of the Office of Specialized and Technical Agencies (IO/STA), Bureau of 
International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, at tel. 
(202) 538-4442 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#70221f12191e031f1e2331423003041104155e171f06"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f6a499949f98859998a5b7c4b68582978293d8919980">[email protected]</span></a>.

Zachary A. Parker,
Director, Office of Directives Management, U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-12434 Filed 6-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 20

- 1268

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Christian Nero Copeland

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

Submitted: November 16, 2020 Filed : December 31, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________

Before BENT ON, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Christian Nero Copeland pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, discharging a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, and forfeiture of currency and a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) , (d); 21 U.S.C.- 2

- §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1), 853; and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) . The district court 1 sentenced
him to 60 months in prison and five years of supervised release

. After serving his sentence, he violated the conditions of his supervised release. The court revoked his release, sentencing him to 18 months in prison and five years of supervised release. He appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U .S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Copeland claims the district court failed to properly weigh the sentencing factors and imposed an unreasonable sentence. This court reviews “ a district court’s revocation sentence using the same standards applied to in itial sentencing
decisions.” United States v. Parker

, 669 Fed. Appx. 323, 324 (8th Cir. 20 16 ). “A sentence within the Guidelines range is accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal.” United States v. Perkins , 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 ( 8th Cir. 2008).

Copeland believes the district court abused its discretion “when it failed to consider the excess time that Copeland had already served for his original offense and placed punishment over the rehabilitative goals that underly supervised r elease.” This argument is without merit. Imposing a within

- guidelines sentence, the district
court considered each of the § 3553(a) factors, especially the fact that Copeland “pose[d] a danger to society.” See United States v. Franklin , 3 97 F.3d 604

, 60 7 (8th
Cir. 200 5) (“ [E] vidence that the district court was aware of the relevant § 3553(a) factors required to be considered can be inferred from the record.” ). The district
court has “wide latitude to weigh the section 3553(a) factors in each case and as sign some factors greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence.” United States v. Campbell , 976 F.3d 775, 778 (8th Cir. 2020). “The mere fact that a

1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska , now deceased.- 3

- court could have weighed the sentencing factors differently does not amount to a n abuse of discretion.” Id.

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kareem A. ABERNATHY, Appellant.

No. WD 48594.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 10, 1995.

Laura G. Martin, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

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

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and ELLIS, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from convictions of assault of a law enforcement officer in the second degree and armed criminal action, and from consecutive prison terms totalling eight years.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1191]



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

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

18 CFR Part 1301


Privacy Act Regulations; Implementation

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is amending its 
regulations implementing the Privacy Act of 1974 (the Act), 5 U.S.C. 
552a. The amendment modifies existing TVA regulations (18 CFR 1301.24) 
exempting the system of records known as OIG Investigative Records--TVA 
(TVA-31) from certain provisions of the Act and corresponding agency 
regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 25, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilma H. McCauley, TVA, 1101 Market 
St. (CST 13B), Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801, telephone number: (423) 751-
2523.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 28, 1993, (58 FR 57972-57974) TVA 
gave notice as required by the Privacy Act of its intention to amend 
the system of records known as OIG Investigative Records--TVA (TVA-31) 
from certain provisions of the Act and corresponding agency 
regulations. No comments were received. TVA is therefore updating its 
regulations at 18 CFR part 1301 to reflect this amendment.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 1301

    Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of Information, 
Privacy Act, Sunshine Act.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, TVA is amending 18 CFR, 
chapter XIII, part 1301, as follows:

PART 1301--PROCEDURES

    1. The authority citation for part 1301 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 831-831dd, 5 U.S.C. 552a.

    2. Section 1301.24(d) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 1301.24  Specific exemptions.

* * * * *
    (d) The TVA system OIG Investigative Records is exempt from 
subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4), (G), (H), and (I) and (f) of 5 
U.S.C. 552a (section 3 of the Privacy Act) and corresponding sections 
of these rules pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). The TVA system OIG 
Investigative Records is exempt from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), 
(e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), (e)(5), (e)(8), and (g) 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). This system is exempt because 
application of these provisions might alert investigation subjects to 
the existence or scope of investigations, lead to suppression, 
alteration, fabrication, or destruction of evidence, disclose 
investigative techniques or procedures, reduce the cooperativeness or 
safety of witnesses, or otherwise impair investigations.
* * * * *
William S. Moore,
Senior Manager, Administrative Services.
[FR Doc. 96-1191 Filed 1-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-W-
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, John Boschert, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Blackstone Lake Minerals Inc. (the Company), hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|(i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
        fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2009, and to which this certification is
        attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
        requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
  1934, as amended; and
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|(ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
  operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                              



| | By:    | /s/
      John Boschert         
| | ------ | --------------------------------
| |        |                                 
| | Name:  | JOHN BOSCHERT                   
| |        |                                 
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and     
| |        | Chief Financial Officer         
| |        | (Principal Executive Officer and
| |        | Principal Financial Officer)    
| |        |                                 
| | Date:  | March 20, 2009                  



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.



---
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Larry Eugene WINDEKNECHT, Appellant. Larry Eugene WINDEKNECHT, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 54638, 56712.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Jan. 16, 1990.

Donald J. Hager, Public Defender, Farm-ington, for appellant.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Larry Windeknecht, appeals from his convictions, after a jury trial of burglary in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and failure to appear. Defendant was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 11 years. Defendant’s convictions are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Movant, Larry Windeknecht, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant’s appeal is dismissed. Rule 84.13(a).
----

|                                                                    |   |               |       |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------|------------|
|                                                                    |   | Three Months Ended |       |
|                                                                    |   | March 31, 2010     |       |   | March 31, 2009 |   |
|                                                                    |   | (Restated)         |       |   |   |   |
| Net income                                                              |   | $                  | (5,952     | ) |   | $ | 1,449 |   |
| Weighted average common shares outstanding for computation of basic EPS |   |               | 12,625,968 |   |   |   | 12,651,676 |   |
| Dilutive common-equivalent shares                                       |   |               | --         |   |   |   | 337 |   |
| Weighted average common shares for computation of diluted EPS           |   |               | 12,625,968 |   |   |   | 12,652,013 |   |
|                                                                    |   |               |       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Earnings per common share:                                              |   |               |       |   |   |   |   |   |
|       Basic                               |   | $                  | (0.47      | ) |   | $ | 0.11 |   |
|       Diluted                             |   | $                  | (0.47      | ) |   | $ | 0.11 |   |

|                                                                    |   | Six Months Ended |       |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------|------------|
|                                                                    |   | March 31, 2010   |       |   | March 31, 2009 |   |
|                                                                    |   | (restated)       |       |   |   |   |
| Net income                                                              |   | $                | (11,038    | ) |   | $ | 2,424 |   |
| Weighted average common shares outstanding for computation of basic EPS |   |             | 12,619,455 |   |   |   | 12,668,741 |   |
| Dilutive common-equivalent shares                                       |   |             | 2,918      |   |   |   | 5,074 |   |
| Weighted average common shares for computation of diluted EPS           |   |             | 12,622,373 |   |   |   | 12,673,815 |   |
|                                                                    |   |             |       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Earnings per common share:                                              |   |             |       |   |   |   |   |   |
|       Basic                               |   | $                | (0.87      | ) |   | $ | 0.19 |   |
|       Diluted                             |   | $                | (0.87      | ) |   | $ | 0.19 |   |
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Cornelius BROWN, Appellant. Cornelius BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 50359, WD 51802.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 24, 1996.

Ellen H. Flottman, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

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

Before LAURA DENVIR STITH, P. J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Cornelius Brown appeals his conviction for drug trafficking in the second degree, in violation of § 195.223 RSMo 1994. He received a thirty year sentence. He also appeals the denial of Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Having considered his arguments, the court finds no error, and we affirm the conviction and the denial of post-conviction relief. The decision is without precedential value. A memorandum has been furnished to the parties. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
#### Marlene BEST and Charlene Rodriguez, Appellants, v. DAIRYLAND INSURANCE CO., Defendant, Gary Lee Schenkel, et al, Respondents.

No. WD 50760.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 14, 1995.

Joseph K. Lewis, Jr., Kansas City, for appellants.

Steven F. Coronado, Kansas City, for respondents.

Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., BERREY, J., and TURNAGE, Senior Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADDED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in this Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial condition and results of the Company as of
and for the period covered by this Report.
 By:
    /s/ William J. McGurkWilliam J. McGurkPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 9, 2010By:
    /s/ John T. LundJohn T. LundSVP, Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerNovember 9, 2010 The forgoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
12 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the
Report or as a separate disclosure document.Note: A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to
Rockville Financial, Inc. and will be retained by Rockville
Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wren, Inc. (Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter year ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel D. Drummond, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.   Date:  October 26, 2007   /s/ Daniel D. Drummond Daniel D. Drummond President and CEO, CFO   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1154]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Application of Jet Aspen, Inc. for Certificate Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 96-1-16) Docket OST-95-
689.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Jet 
Aspen, Inc., fit, willing, and able, and awarding it a certificate of 
public convenience and necessity to engage in interstate scheduled air 
transportation of persons, property, and mail.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
February 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should filed in Docket 
OST-95-689 and addressed to the Documentary Services Division (C-55, 
Room PL-401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590 and should be served upon the parties listed 
in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Carol A. Woods, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), 
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20590, (202) 366-2340.

    Dated: January 19, 1996.
Patrick V. Murphy,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-1154 Filed 1-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P-M
#### STATE of Missouri, ex rel. MISSOURI HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. The CLARKSON GROUP, et al. Exceptions of the Clarkson Group, et al., Defendants/Appellants.

No. 67538.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Nov. 28, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 29, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied March 26, 1996.

David O. Danis, Paul J. Vaporean, Danis, Cooper, Cavanagh & Hartweger, St. Louis, for appellant.

Laura A. Schildz, Rich Tiemeyer, Chesterfield, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

In this condemnation action, owner appeals arguing the trial court erred in giving a withdrawal instruction requiring the jury to disregard portions of testimony by owner’s expert witness. Owner also appeals the admission into evidence of a lease on Parcel One. Finally, owner contends the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*234The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).