alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 102 (Friday, May 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 26167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13187]



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


COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List Proposed Addition

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed Addition to Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee has received a proposal to add to the 
Procurement List a commodity to be furnished by nonprofit agencies 
employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE: June 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, Virginia 22202-3461.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Milkman (703) 603-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested 
persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the 
proposed action.
    If the Committee approves the proposed addition, all entities of 
the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required 
to procure the commodity listed below from nonprofit agencies employing 
persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
    I certify that the following action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors 
considered for this certification were:
    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, 
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other 
than the small organizations that will furnish the commodity to the 
Government.
    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish 
the commodity to the Government.
    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would 
accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
48c) in connection with the commodity proposed for addition to the 
Procurement List.
    Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should 
identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they 
are providing additional information.
    The following commodity has been proposed for addition to 
Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

Flag, National, Interment
    8345-00-656-1432
    (Additional 20% of the Government's requirement)
    NPA: Huntsville Rehabilitation Foundation, Huntsville, Alabama
    Goodwill Industries of South Florida, Inc., Miami, Florida
    North Bay Rehabilitation Services, Inc., San Rafael, California
Beverly L. Milkman,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 96-13187 Filed 5-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Danna Presley Cyr, * From the 10 6 th District Court

of Gaines County,

Trial Court No. 18

- 4835

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 0 41

- CR * February 26 , 20 2 1

The State of Texas

, * Opinion by W illiams, J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion,

the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
The Honorable R. E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern 1

District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Celeste

F. Bremer, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2480

___________

Kenneth W. Simpson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Cathy Brandon, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 24, 1998

 Filed: December 1, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth W. Simpson appeals from the district court&s dismissal of his action

1

with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or

to comply with court orders. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties&

submissions, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See

Rodgers v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 135 F.3d 1216, 1219 (8th Cir. 1998)
-2-

(standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See

8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES EDWARD JENKINS,

Petitioner,

v.

YAVAPAI SUPERIOR COURTS,

Respondent.

1:18-cv-00031-MJS (HC) 

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915. 

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on 

diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant 

resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a 

substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial 

district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action 

may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the 

district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The district court for the district wherein such 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

an application is filed may, in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice,

transfer the application to the other district court for hearing and determination. Id.

It is preferable for petitions challenging a conviction or sentence to be heard in the 

district of conviction and for petitions challenging the manner in which the sentence is 

being executed to be heard in the district of confinement. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 

244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). In this case, it appears that Petitioner is challenging a 

conviction from Yavapai County, which is in the District of Arizona. Therefore, the 

petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of 

Arizona.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the 

United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2018 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:18-cr-00033-JAS-EJM Document 1 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Steven L. HELTON and Hope Funeral Home, Inc., Appellants, v. MISSOURI STATE BOARD OF EMBALMERS AND FUNERAL DIRECTORS, Respondent.

No. WD 50368.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Submitted Oct. 24, 1995.

Decided Feb. 6, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 2, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied May 7, 1996.

Phillip L. Morris, Kansas City, for appellants.

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

Before SMART, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BERREY, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

*ORDER*

Steven L. Helton and Hope Funeral Home, Inc. appeal a judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole County affirming decisions of the Administrative Hearing Commission and the Missouri State Board of Embalmers finding cause to discipline the licenses of appellants. The court, having carefully considered the arguments of appellants, concludes that the trial court did not err in affirming the decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission and the disciplinary order of the Board of Embalmers.

Judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
DISTRICT JUDGE'S CIVIL MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Dominic W. Lanza

Case Number: CV-17-04663-PHX-DWL

Date: December 2, 2020 

Cramton v. Grabbagreen Franchising LLC et al

APPEARANCES:

Emily Dierberg Armstrong and

Todd Feltus with Plaintiff Kim 

Cramton (all appearing 

telephonically)

Larry J. Cohen and

Kelli Toronyi Newman

(both appearing telephonically)

Plaintiff(s) counsel Defense counsel

Telephonic Conference

This is the time set for Telephonic Conference re: Defendants’ Motion to Change the Format of the 

Trial or Continue Trial (Doc. 365). The Court advises counsel it has also reviewed Plaintiff’s response 

(Doc. 368). Discussion held. For reasons as stated on the record, IT IS ORDERED granting in part 

and denying in part Defendants’ motion (Doc. 365). The bench trial will proceed as scheduled on 

December 10, 2020. However, the Court will permit Defense counsel and Defendant to appear 

remotely for trial. If a trial witness is not comfortable appearing in the courtroom to testify, counsel are 

directed to file a motion requesting remote appearance. Logistics of witnesses’ remote appearances are 

discussed. 

The Court will consult with its IT staff regarding remote appearances and will either schedule another 

telephonic status conference to discuss this issue or will direct Court staff to communicate with counsel 

by e-mail regarding remote appearance procedures.

Regarding Defendants’ trial exhibits, Defense counsel are directed to ship their marked exhibits, the 

binder of exhibits for the Court and the Defendants’ exhibit and witness lists (three copies each) to the 

courthouse as soon as possible. The Court further directs Defense counsel to provide copies of trial 

exhibits to their witnesses that will be discussed with each particular Defense witness prior to their 

testimony.

Counsel address the Court regarding the length of trial. The Court will hold trial on December 16 

(barring any issues with the availability of trial courtroom 604) to allow an additional trial day in light 

of the Court’s ruling permitting remote appearances. Discussion held regarding counsels’ allotted trial 

hours.

Case 2:17-cv-04663-DWL Document 369 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1 of 2
CV-17-04663-PHX-DWL December 2, 2020 

Cramton v. Grabbagreen Franchising LLC, et al. Page 2 of 2

LATER: The Court having confirmed that Courtroom 604 is available on December 16, counsel are 

advised that trial will be in session that day.

Deputy Clerk: Maureen Williams

Court Reporter: Candy Potter Start: 10:00 AM

Stop: 10:40 AM

Case 2:17-cv-04663-DWL Document 369 Filed 12/02/20 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 I, David S. Boone, hereby certify that:
 
 1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of American CareSource Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”); and
 
 2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
 
 
 Date: July 8, 2011/s/ David S. BooneDavid S. BooneChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mussalina Muhaymin, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

City of Phoenix, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-17-04565-PHX-SMB

ORDER 

Pursuant to Defendants City of Phoenix, Antonio Tarango, Oswald Grenier, Kevin 

McGowan, Jason Hobel, Ronaldo Canilao, David Head, Susan Heimbigner, James Clark, 

Dennis Leroux, Ryan Nielsen and Steven Wong (collectively “Phoenix Defendants”) 

Motion to Seal Defendants’ Reply in Support of Expedited Motion for Protective Order 

and Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 250), including the referenced exhibits, and good cause 

appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the Motion and sealing Defendants’ Reply 

in Support of Expedited Motion for Protective Order and Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 251), 

including the referenced exhibits. 

Dated this 8th day of January, 2021.
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 Annual Report of Omphalos, Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to such officer’s knowledge that:





(i)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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.





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.





March 23, 2011
/s/Chu Pi YunChu Pi YunChief Financial Officer
Presidential Documents

24875

Federal Register

Vol. 61, No. 97

Friday, May 17, 1996

Title 3—

The President

Memorandum of April 26, 1996

Suspension of Subsection 119(a) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996,

(‘‘Act’’) as set forth in Section 101(c) of Title I of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996

(H.R. 3019) Regarding the Mojave National Preserve

Memorandum for the Secretary of the Interior

By the authority vested in me by subsection 119(b) of the Department

of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, (‘‘Act’’) as

set forth in section 101(c) of title I of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions

and Appropriations Act of 1996 (H.R. 3019), and section 301 of title 3,

United States Code, I hereby suspend subsection 119(a) of the Act because

I have determined that such suspension is appropriate based upon the

public interest in sound environmental management, sustainable resource

use, protection of national or locally-affected interests, and protection of

cultural, biological, or historic resources.

This suspension shall take effect immediately and shall continue until subsection 119(a) expires.

You are authorized and directed to report this suspension to the Congress

and to publish this memorandum in the 

œ–

Federal Register.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, April 26, 1996. [FR Doc. 96–12571

Filed 5–16–96; 8:45 am]

Billing code 4310–70–M
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Edgar D Contreras, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-18-00077-PHX-DWL 

ORDER 

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United 

States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 16). The R&R, which was issued on December 27, 2018, 

recommended that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice and further provided 

that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. . . . Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result 

in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further 

review.” (Doc. 16 at 12-13.) 

Here, no such objections have been filed. Thus, the Court accepts the Magistrate 

Judge’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does 

not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual 

or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to 

those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are 

filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1221 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 

de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 16) is accepted and adopted, that the Petition 

(Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of Court shall enter 

judgment accordingly. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because Petitioner has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and jurists of reason would not 

find the Court’s assessment of Petitioner’s constitutional claims debatable or wrong. 

 Dated this 1st day of February, 2019.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT








In connection with the Quarterly Report of AeroGrow International Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, H. MacGregor Clarke, 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:





(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 as of and for the period covered by this Report.





Date:  February 14, 2011
By:
/s/ H. MacGregor ClarkeH. MacGregor ClarkeChief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona

Beverly K. Anderson

Assistant U.S. Attorney

State Bar No. 010547

United States Courthouse

405 W. Congress Street, Suite 4800

Tucson, Arizona 85701

Telephone: 520-620-7300

Email: Bev.anderson@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Ahmad Suhad Ahmad,

 Defendant.

17-mj-08749-TUC (BGM)

NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION

OF GOVERNMENT COUNSEL

The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorneys, gives 

notice that Beverly K. Anderson files her appearance as counsel for the United States of 

America in the above-captioned matter, in place of AUSA Cory M. Picton.

Respectfully submitted this 29th day of March, 2018.

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona

s/ Beverly K. Anderson

BEVERLY K. ANDERSON

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 4:17-mj-08749-BGM Document 9 Filed 03/29/18 Page 1 of 1
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Luis Fernando Zavala-Algander, 

Defendant/Movant.

No. CV17-04707-PHX-SRB

 CR15-01501-PHX-SRB 

ORDER 

 

 Movant, Luis Fernando Zavala-Algander, filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on December 19, 2017. The United States 

filed its response in opposition on May 21, 2018 and Movant filed a reply June 8, 2018. 

 The Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation on July 18, 2018 

recommending that Movant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence be 

denied. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that 

they had fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. The 

time to file such objections has expired and no objections to the Report and 

Recommendation have been filed. 

 The Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Magistrate Judge. 

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge as the Order of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or 

Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Movant has not made a substantial showing 

of the denial of a constitutional right. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 20th day of August, 2018.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 620 

Condemning the violence in Honduras and calling for the return of the 

duly elected President. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 8, 2009 

Mr. SERRANO submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning the violence in Honduras and calling for the 

return of the duly elected President. 

Whereas, on November 27, 2005, Manuel Zelaya was elected 

President of Honduras; 

Whereas, on June 28, 2009, President Manuel Zelaya was removed from office with 18 months left in his term and 

was subsequently expelled from the country by the Honduran military; 

Whereas the current leadership in Honduras refuses to allow 

President Zelaya to return to the country; 

Whereas the Organization of American States, the United 

Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, and the United 

Nations General Assembly have all condemned the coup; 

and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 620 IH 

Whereas since the overthrow of the president, the coup government has violently suppressed peaceful demonstrations: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) calls upon the leaders of the coup in Hon3 duras to end their illegal seizure of power, to allow 

4 the president to return to his duly elected post, and 

5 to work within the rule of law to resolve current and 

6 future differences with the elected government; and 

7 (2) condemns the ongoing violence against 

8 peaceful demonstrators in Honduras. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS