alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18586]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,640]

3M Touch Systems; A Subsidiary of 3M, Electro & Communications 
Division, Milwaukee, WI; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application Dated July 30, 2008, a company official requested 
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding 
workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on 
July 16, 2008. The Notice of Determination was published in the Federal 
Register on July 30, 2008 (73 FR 44284).
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that imports of touch screens for mobile phones 
did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject 
firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided 
additional information about the customers of the subject firm.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of August 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-18586 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20403-03

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

JOSEPH DALE BRAXTON,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On May 18, 2010, this case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties,

Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. Defendant, along with counsel, appeared before me on May

19, 2010. In open court, I examined Defendant under oath, confirmed Defendant’s consent, and

then advised and questioned Defendant regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b)

of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Based upon Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND: (1) that Defendant

is competent to tender a plea; (2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently made; and (3)

that the offense(s) to which Defendant pleaded guilty is(are) supported by an independent basis

in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense(s). Therefore, I have ordered the

preparation of a presentence investigation report.

Case 1:09-cr-20403-TLL-CEB ECF No. 64, PageID.138 Filed 05/19/10 Page 1 of 3
2

II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure, the Defendant’s plea be accepted, the Defendant be adjudged guilty and that sentence

be imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation

within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d

590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005). The parties

are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the

objections a party may have to this Report and Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of

Social Security, 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant

to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: May 19, 2010 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

Case 1:09-cr-20403-TLL-CEB ECF No. 64, PageID.139 Filed 05/19/10 Page 2 of 3
3

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date,

electronically served on Shane Waller and Steve Jacobs, and served on District Judge Ludington

in the traditional manner.

Date: May 19, 2010 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

Case 1:09-cr-20403-TLL-CEB ECF No. 64, PageID.140 Filed 05/19/10 Page 3 of 3
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 525

To repeal the must-carry provisions of title VI of the Communications Act

of 1934, relating to cable television.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 17, 1995

Mr. BAKER of California (for himself, Mr. HOKE, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr.

FRANK of Massachusetts, and Mr. PARKER) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To repeal the must-carry provisions of title VI of the

Communications Act of 1934, relating to cable television.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL.

4 Sections 614 and 615 of the Communications Act of

5 1934 (47 U.S.C. 534, 535), relating to the carriage obliga6 tions of cable systems with respect to commercial and non7 commercial local television stations, are repealed.
2

•HR 525 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

2 (a) RETRANSMISSION CONSENT.—Section 325(b) of

3 the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b)) is

4 amended—

5 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘except—’’

6 and all that follows through the period at the end

7 of such paragraph and inserting the following: ‘‘ex8 cept with the express authority of the originating

9 station.’’;

10 (2) in paragraph (3)(A)—

11 (A) by striking ‘‘(3)(A)’’ and inserting

12 ‘‘(3)’’; and

13 (B) by striking ‘‘and of the right to signal

14 carriage under section 614’’;

15 (3) by striking paragraphs (3)(B), (4), and (5);

16 and

17 (4) by redesignating paragraph (6) as para18 graph (4).

19 (b) RATE REGULATION.—Section 623(b)(7) of such

20 Act (47 U.S.C. 543(b)(7)) is amended—

21 (1) by striking clause (i); and

22 (2) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as

23 clauses (i) and (ii), respectively.

24 (c) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—Section 635 of such Act (47

25 U.S.C. 555) is amended by striking subsection (c).

Æ
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 23

- 12280

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________

RICHARD HARRIS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus GOODWIN, Assistant Warden, FOSTER, C.O.,

Defendants

- Appellees.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-12280 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 09/12/2023 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 23

- 12280
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:22

- cv

- 01155

- MMH

- JBT

____________________
Before W ILSON , L UCK , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte , for lack of jurisdiction. Richard Harris appeals from the magistrate judge’s June 20, 2023 order denying his motions for appointment of counsel and service by publication and to condemn the defendant’s property. However, we lack jurisdiction to directly review a magistrate judge’s order, and an appeal from such an order must be taken to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete
Co. , 693 F.2d 1061, 1066

- 67 (1 1th Cir. 1982) (explaining that magistrate judge orders issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) are not final and may not be appealed until rendered final by a district court); United States v. Schultz , 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting that appel late courts are without jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from magistrate judges). Even if the district judge had entered an order affirming the magistrate judge’s rulings, those rulings are not final in that they did not end the litigation on the meri ts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal , 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (stating that a final order ends litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment). And the June 20 USCA11 Case: 23-12280 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 09/12/2023 Page: 2 of 323

- 12280 Opinion of the Court 3
order did not dispose of a claim or party, so it could not have been certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant , 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) ( noting that an order that disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not immediately appealable absent certification pursuant to Rule 54(b)). All pending motions are denied as moot. No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40

- 3 and all other applicable rules. USCA11 Case: 23-12280 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 09/12/2023 Page: 3 of 3
Exhibit 99.1


          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the annual report of Capital Preferred Yield Fund-III, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2003,
as filed with the Security and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John F. Olmstead, President and Director of CAI Equipment Leasing
IV Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, 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 Partnership.


By:    /s/John F. Olmstead                             Dated: March 30, 2004
       -------------------
       John F. Olmstead
Title: President and Director
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4205 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4205

To amend title 49, United States Code, concerning employment standards 
                    for airport security personnel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 1996

   Mr. King introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 49, United States Code, concerning employment standards 
                    for airport security personnel.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Airport Security Personnel Standards 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS FOR AIRPORT SECURITY PERSONNEL.

    Section 44935(a) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as 
        subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively;
            (2) by striking ``The Administrator'' and inserting ``(1) 
        The Administrator''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) Any standards for airport security personnel prescribed under 
paragraph (1) shall include requirements for law enforcement or 
military training.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18405]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XJ57


U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment 
Product Draft Report 1.2 ``Past Climate Variability and Change in the 
Arctic and at High Latitudes''

AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes 
this notice to announce a 45-day public comment period for the draft 
report titled, U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and 
Assessment Product 1.2 ``Past Climate Variability and Change in the 
Arctic and at High Latitudes.''This draft report is being released 
solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under 
applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been 
formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be 
construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. After 
consideration of comments received on the draft report, a revised 
version along with the comments received will be published on the CCSP 
web site.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The draft Synthesis and Assessment Product: 1.2 is posted on 
the CCSP Web site at:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-2/default.php
Detailed instructions for making comments on this draft report are 
provided on the link above. Comments must be prepared in accordance to 
these instructions and must be submitted to:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#21100f130c424d4857405361424d484c405544524248444f42440f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c9f8e7fbe4aaa5a0bfa8bb89aaa5a0a4a8bdacbaaaa0aca7aaace7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Fabien Laurier, Climate Change 
Science Program Office, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 250, 
Washington, DC 20006, Telephone: (202) 419-3481.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CCSP was established by the President in 
2002 to coordinate and integrate scientific research on global change 
and climate change sponsored by 13 participating departments and 
agencies of the U.S. Government. The CCSP is charged with preparing 
information resources that promote climate-related discussions and 
decisions, including scientific synthesis and assessment analyses that 
support evaluation of important policy issues.

    Dated: August 1, 2008.
William J. Brennan,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and 
Director, Climate Change Science Program.
[FR Doc. E8-18405 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-12-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
229 So.2d 474

#### C. L. AUTRY v. ROEBUCK PARK BAPTIST CHURCH.

6 Div. 555.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 11, 1969.

George C. Longshore and Cooper, Mitch & Crawford, Birmingham, for appellant.

Rives, Peterson, Pettus & Conway, Birmingham, for appellee.

HARWOOD, Justice.

Affirmed on the authority of Annie Laurie Autry v. Roebuck Park Baptist Church, a Corporation, 285 Ala. 76, 229 So. 2d 469 (6 Div. 554).

LIVINGSTON, C. J, and LAWSON, MERRILL and MADDOX, JJ, concur.
#### David APETZ, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Kathryn BALCH, f/k/a Kathryn Apetz, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 69169.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

July 9, 1996.

David S. Schmidt, O’Fallon, for appellant.

Bruce Hilton, Julie K. Morían, Webster Groves, for respondent.

Before GERALD M. SMITH, P.J., and GARY GAERTNER, and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Mother, Kathryn Balch, appeals from the judgment modifying the parties’ decree of dissolution transferring primary custody of the parties’ minor son from mother to father, David Apetz. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. A detailed opinion would have no precedential value. We have provided the parties with a memorandum opinion explaining our reasoning. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AD E L AI DE NZ E US S E U, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 71325 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 414- 778 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary21, 2012 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , M cK E O W N , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A de l a i de N z e us s e u, anat i ve and c i t i z e n of C am e r oon, pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng her m ot i on t o reopen r e m ova lpr oc e e di ngs . W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or 

# FI LED MA R 02 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 71325 2 ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , T

ou f i gh iv. Mukasey , 538 F . 3d 9 8 8 , 9 9 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) , an dw e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g N z e u s s e u ’s m o tio n to re o p en as u n ti m ely w h er e th e m o ti o n w as filedo v erth re e y ea rs af ter th e B IA ’s f in a l d e c is io n , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2), and N ze usse u fai l ed t o p re se ntevi dence o f c h an g e dc i r c u ms t an c e s i n Came r o o n t o qu a l i f yf o ran e x c e p t i o n t o th e t i me lim it, se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; T ouf i ghi , 538 F . 3d at996- 97 ( unde r l y i ng advers e c re di bi l i ty det erm i nat i on re nd er ed evi dence of changed ci rc um st ance s i m m at er i al ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 11097 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
EDGAR A. LOCKETT, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:13

- CR

- 12

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * A jury found Edgar A. Lockett, Jr., guilty of six counts of income tax evasion. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for release on bond pending sentencing. Following a hearing, the district court denied the motion on the ground that Lockett failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he would not be a flight risk and danger to the community if released pending sentencing.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 17, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-11097 Document: 00512474502 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013No. 13

- 11097
A convicted defendant does not have a constitutional right to bail. United States v. Olis , 450 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 2006). A defendant “ who has been found guilty of an offense and who is awaiting imposition

. . . of sentence ” shall be detained pending sentencing “unless the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to
th e safety of any other person or the community if released.” 18 U.S.C. § 3143 (a)(1). Lockett does not dispute the district court’s factual findings on the issues of flight risk and danger to the community. Instead, he argues that the district court viola ted his rights to due process and confrontation when it allowed, over his objections, the introduction of hearsay evidence at the hearing on his motion for release on bond pending sentencing. However, even if we do not consider the few challenged instance s o f hearsay testimony, the totality of the evidence adduced at the bond hearing clearly support s the district court’s conclusion t hat Lockett ha s not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he i s not a flight risk or a danger to the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143 (a)(1).
Lockett ’s challenge fails. AFFIRMED. Lockett’s motion for bond pending judgment is DENIED.

2 Case: 13-11097 Document: 00512474502 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
194 La. 581

#### STATE v. WILLIAMSON.

No. 35624.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 9, 1940.

Philip H. Mecom, of Shreveport, for relator.

J. U. Galloway, Dist. Atty., of Shreveport, for respondents.

HIGGINS, Justice.

The accused, Earl G. Williamson, was charged in four separate indictments returned by the Grand Jury of the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana, on October 2, 1939, with violating the provisions of Act 16 of 1920. The allegations in each indictment, for all legal purposes are the same and we quote one as representative of all of them:

> “ * * * being Police Juror in and for Ward Two of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and a stockholder and officer and director of Williamson Motors, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation domiciled at Vivian, in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, was then and there interested directly and indirectly in a contract of sale whereby the said Williamson Motors, Inc., then and there sold and delivered to 'Police Jury of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, one 1939 Chevrolet DeLuxe Town Sedan for Eight Hundred Ninety-nine and (899.45) Dollars, the payment of which came out of his Parish, * * * » *

The defendant filed a motion to quash the indictments on the ground that they failed to set forth a crime known to the laws of this State, and particularly because the statute in question was unconstitutional. The district judge overruled the motion and the accused reserved a bill. The defendant was tried before Honorable J. H. Stephens, District Judge, who found him guilty and imposed a fine of $100 and costs in each instance, and further, in default of payment *27of said fines and costs, that the defendant serve a term of thirty days in the Caddo Parish jail on each conviction. Proper notice of his intention to apply to this Court to exercise its supervisory power was given to the District Attorney and the trial judge. Writs were granted by us with stay orders.

The legal question' presented here is identical with that decided by us this day in the case of State v. De Generes, La.Sup., 194 So. 24, on February 5, 1940. From the views that we expressed there, it is clear that the indictments in the instant case are fatally defective and should be quashed.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment and sentences of the district court are annulled and set aside and the indictments quashed.

O’NIELL, C. J., is of the opinion that the only question presented by the motion to quash the indictment in each of these cases is whether Act No. 16 of 1920 is unconstitutional.