alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 173 (Friday, September 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20610]


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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Correction of Notice To Clarify Scope of Procurement List 
Additions; 2008 Commodities Procurement List

    This Committee is correcting the notice of products that moved from 
its C-List to B-List.
    In the notice appearing on page 50930-50931 on August 29, 2008 
(Volume 73, Number 169), the Committee published products that are C-
List products incorrectly as products that are moving from the C-List 
to the B-List.
    The products that have moved from the C-List to the B-List are:

    SKILCRAFT 18'' Blue Wet Mop 7920-01-565-4597.
    SKILCRAFT 24'' Blue Wet Mop 7920-01-565-4596.
    SKILCRAFT 18'' Yellow Dust Mop 7920-01-565-4598.
    SKILCRAFT 24'' Yellow Dust Mop 7920-01-565-4599.
    SKILCRAFT Flat Mop Handle with Frame 18'' 7920-01-565-4595.
    SKILCRAFT Flat Mop Handle with Frame 24'' 7920-01-565-4600.

    The URL for accessing the A-List is corrected as follows: http://www.jwod.gov/jwod/p_and_s/A-List_08.html.

Kimberly M. Zeich,
Director, Program Operations.
[FR Doc. E8-20610 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL JAMES HICKS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

LINDA NEAL, Program Director; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-17343

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02207-SI

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 14, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Michael James Hicks appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety and serious medical needs. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v.

FILED

OCT 21 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hicks failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted in

conscious disregard of a risk to any serious health or safety issue. See id. at 1057-

58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if she knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health and safety); see also Jackson v.

McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (a difference of opinion as to the need

to pursue one course of treatment over another is not actionable under the Eighth

Amendment).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hicks’s motion for

appointment of counsel because Hicks failed to demonstrate exceptional

circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting

forth standard of review and explaining “exceptional circumstances” requirement).

We reject Hicks’s contentions that the district court erred by denying his

motions for service of subpoenas and to amend named parties and the nature of his

action.

Hicks’s request for judicial notice, filed on June 4, 2014, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-17343
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50676

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUBEN VALDEZ-CARDENAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-02-CR-639-1-WWJ

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Ruben Valdez-Cardenas appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Valdez-Cardenas argues that the prior conviction that resulted in

his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his

indictment. He argues that his sentence exceeds the term of

imprisonment which may be imposed under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
No. 03-50676

-2-

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Valdez-Cardenas acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, including

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to

preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ronald K. Lee, Respondent, v New York State Department of Correction et al., Appellants.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and petition dismissed. Memorandum: When reviewing a determination of the Parole Board to revoke parole, a court may only "examine the record to determine if the required procedural rules were followed and if there is any evidence which, if believed, would support the Parole Board’s determination, but the court may not make its own determinations based on its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses” *(People ex rel. Walker v Hammock, 78*AD2d 369, 371). Here, the testimony of the parole officers, if believed, was sufficient to support the Parole Board’s determination that petitioner had violated three conditions of his parole. Consequently, Supreme Court erred by granting the writ of habeas corpus and ordering petitioner to be returned to parole supervision. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J.—habeas corpus.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
EXHIBIT 35.2

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC

                RALI SERIES 2006-QA4 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:    /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
       Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
       Title: Executive Vice President
Amendment to Can Supply Agreement




 Exhibit 10.28 
  
 REXAM 
 BEVERAGE CAN 
 Americas 
  
 June 25, 2002 
  
 Mr. Ray Malone 
 Corporate Director 
 Packaging and Ingredients 
 Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. 
 P.O. Box 723040 
 Atlanta, GA 31139-0040 
  
 Dear Ray: 
  
 It is agreed, for the balance of the term of the Can Supply Agreement, dated January 1, 1999 (the “Agreement”), as amended by the June 25, 2002 Amendment to the Agreement (the “Amendment”), that
for purposes of evaluating a competitive offer under Section 4(b) (upon the reinstatement of such provision as provided for in the Amendment) and/or for purposes of determining whether we are selling to another customer at a price lower than
CCE’s price under Section 4(a) of the Agreement, as amended, no adjustments will be made unless the competitive offer or price we are selling to another customer is less than *** of the then current price being charged to Coca-Cola Enterprises,
Inc. 
  
 Please indicate your agreement with the terms of this letter by signing
below and returning this letter to me. 
  

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	 /S/ P.J. Sullivan

	 Patrick Sullivan
 Vice President,
Sales



  

			
	 Agreed to and Accepted for and on behalf of
 Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.

		
	By:	 	/S/    Ray Malone        
	 	 	Ray Malone
		
	Title:	 	Corporate Director of Procurement

  

					
	 ***CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN OMITTED AND
FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
	 	 	 	 REXAM BEVERAGE CAN COMPANY
 8770 WEST BRYN
MAWR AVENUE
 SUITE 175
 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60631-3655

USA
 TEL: +1 773 399 3000
|What's New · 
   What's Next · 
   Site Map · 
   A-Z Index ·
   Careers ·
   RSS ·
   All Videos ·
   Current FAQs |  | Search  Advanced Search | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization - G.17 Current Release
  Release Dates
  Monthly Supplement
  Annual Revision
  Historical Data
  About
  Announcements
 Annual Revision (400 KB PDF) (ASCII)  Table 14  Production Index(2007=100)
Price Index(2007=100)
Value of Production(millions of dollars)Annual Estimates1999
50.4
396.0
22,111.22000
61.4
354.9
24,174.12001
79.0
272.0
23,839.62002
59.7
204.4
13,595.42003
69.1
156.6
11,941.92004
79.4
122.4
10,809.12005
92.6
110.9
11,398.82006
148.8
105.1
17,251.42007
100.0
100.0
11,326.72008
7.9
93.6
828.52009
14.9
83.5
1,367.9Quarterly Estimates1999Q1
44.2
417.9
18,589.6Q2
56.1
398.8
22,495.2Q3
61.1
386.9
23,766.9Q4
61.7
380.9
23,633.02000Q1
66.6
373.5
25,006.2Q2
66.5
352.5
23,571.1Q3
66.9
348.4
23,453.8Q4
70.8
345.9
24,630.82001Q1
86.5
297.3
25,858.0Q2
85.4
286.3
24,587.9Q3
88.4
261.9
23,292.9Q4
87.8
244.7
21,602.92002Q1
70.5
228.9
16,234.7Q2
64.6
211.0
13,710.1Q3
64.0
195.8
12,596.3Q4
64.3
183.9
11,890.12003Q1
63.7
171.8
11,010.3Q2
75.5
167.2
12,702.4Q3
84.9
154.0
13,146.9Q4
81.1
134.5
10,973.42004Q1
92.7
136.2
12,704.0Q2
84.8
124.1
10,584.3Q3
87.3
117.6
10,329.6Q4
88.1
112.4
9,966.72005Q1
84.6
110.8
9,425.1Q2
91.3
110.0
10,102.2Q3
111.8
111.4
12,524.4Q4
128.9
112.0
14,513.12006Q1
119.5
110.1
13,233.9Q2
130.2
105.0
13,752.0Q3
195.3
102.8
20,177.7Q4
239.5
102.5
24,686.12007Q1
194.2
102.0
19,920.9Q2
157.1
102.1
16,129.3Q3
21.9
99.2
2,181.7Q4
26.9
96.7
2,611.72008Q1
13.6
97.7
1,333.6Q2
7.2
93.9
677.4Q3
7.5
92.7
699.2Q4
5.9
89.8
535.12009Q1
4.6
85.2
396.0Q2
5.3
85.3
453.0Q3
15.0
80.4
1,216.2Q4
52.0
83.1
4,347.6 Return to top
   Home Economic research and data
 Accessibility Contact us Disclaimer  Linking Policy FOIA
 PDF Reader
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 174 (Monday, September 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20692]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,926]


Veyance Technologies, Inc.; Fairlawn, OH; Notice of Termination 
of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on August 25, 2008 in response to a 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Veyance 
Technologies, Inc., Fairlawn, Ohio.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC. this 29th day of August 2008.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-20692 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

 State,

v.

RODOLFO MORALES,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-20-00021-CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 4

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20180C06554)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee’s fourth motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until November 30, 2020. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Joshua C. Spencer, the Appellee’s attorney, prepare 

the Appellee’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before November 30, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of November, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
#### Victor S. OLSEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Sept. 14, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1954.

Coe &■ Coe, Pensacola, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Mark R. Hawes, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert E. Ray, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

HOBSON, Justice.

Appellant, a former city patrolman on the Pensacola city police force, was .informed against below in two counts, the first count charging him, as well as two co-defendants, Coulter and Roberts, with larceny of an oxygen tank and an acetylene tank, and the second count charging appellant with receiving the same tanks, knowing them to have been stolen. A jury found appellant guilty as charged on the second count, and judgment was entered on this verdict. Coulter pleaded guilty, and Roberts, tried with appellant, was also convicted.

Witnesses against appellant included his co-defendant Coulter, and one Kla-patch, who had pleaded guilty to several felonies. Defense counsel attacked the credibility of' these witnesses “upon the theory that they had sought, and probably obtained, immunity, or leniency in consideration of their services to the State” but this remained only a theory, since the record affords no proof of it. Thus, although it is assigned as error, we hold that the trial court correctly refused the requested charges which pertained to the law under F.S. § 932.29, F.S.Á., because these charges would have been merely abstract propositions of law under the facts and circumstances of this case. The charge given was adequate.

Appellant further contends that it was error for the trial court to admit, in rebuttal of proof of his good character, which he had placed in issue, evidence of specific acts of bad conduct, Nelson v. State, 32 Fla. 244, 13 So. 361; Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835; Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 So. 474; Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581, 84 So. 602; Cornelius v. State, Fla., 49 So.2d 332; 32 C.J.S., Evidence § 436, p. 68. We agree that the ad*282mission- complained of was error, but we have studied the record at length, and find that the evidence, with particular reference to facts admitted by appellant himself, leaves no room for reasonable doubt that appellant received and aided in the concealment of the property in question, knowing it to have been stolen, and that admission of the improper rebuttal evidence was not prejudicial or harmful to the substantial rights of the accused. The case must be affirmed upon the authority of Cornelius v. State, supra, 49 So.2d 332.

Affirmed.

TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, SE-BRING, J., and PATTERSON, Associate Justice, concur.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-2890WM

_____________ A. Marie Young, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Nissan Motor Corp., U.S.A., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: May 20, 1998

Filed: May 27, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. A. Marie Young brought this lawsuit against Nissan Motor Corp., U.S.A. , alleging she was injured when the airbag in her 1993 Infiniti automobile deployed in a collis ion with another motor vehicle. The district court granted Nissan summary judgment and

imposed a monetary sanction because Young failed to disclose she had signed a general releas e discharging all claims arising out of the collision. On appeal, Young contends the district court failed to specif y whether the court sanctioned Young or her attorney and the court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. We disagree. Having-2-

reviewedthe record, we conclude Young's claims are unsupported by the record and without legal merit. We thus affirm the district court's judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Nissan's motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MELISSA M. WILLIAMS, 

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

Respondent

______________________

2023-1233

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0831-22-0396-I-1.

______________________

O R D E R

The petitioner having failed to file the brief required by 

Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the 

rules, it is 

Case: 23-1233 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 08/11/2023
2 WILLIAMS V. OPM

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the 

same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in 

accordance with the rules. 

FOR THE COURT

August 11, 2023

Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 11, 2023

Case: 23-1233 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 08/11/2023
#### Claude S. BOLTZ, Appellant, v. Mary BOLTZ, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

March 12, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 9, 1954.

Affirmed.
exv10w16



 








Exhibit 10.16




PEGASUS SOLUTIONS, INC.




2005 EXECUTIVE OFFICER BONUS PLAN SUMMARY




     Effective as of March 8, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Pegasus
Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) established a bonus plan for 2005 pursuant to which the executive
officers are eligible to receive an annual cash bonus subject to the attainment of certain Company
and individual performance criteria during the 2005 fiscal year. The amount of the annual cash
bonus is based on a percentage of each executive’s annual salary, with the target amount per year
for each particular executive ranging from 25% to 100% of the executive’s annual base salary (the
“Target Bonus”). The specific percentage of the Target Bonus to be awarded an executive is based
upon a 2005 adjusted earnings per share (“adjusted EPS”) goal and the achievement of individualized
goals specific to each executive officer, such as improving customer satisfaction, delivering key
projects within timing and budget goals, managing and reducing certain expenditures, achieving
specific revenue goals and achieving specified growth goals with respect to certain service
offerings (the “Individualized Targets”). A percentage of the Target Bonus is attributable to the
adjusted EPS goal and each Individualized Target. Failure of the Company to achieve the adjusted
EPS goal or failure of the executive to achieve the Individualized Targets could result in
elimination or reduction of the bonus depending upon the percentage attributable to the unmet
performance criteria. The executive is eligible to receive a specified percentage of the Target
Bonus in excess of the Target Bonus in the event the executive satisfies all of the Individualized
Targets and the Company exceeds its adjusted EPS goal. Each of the current executive officers of
the Company listed in the Company’s proxy statement is eligible under the bonus plan. However,
there is no formal agreement with respect to each executive’s annual bonus, the payment of which is
ultimately discretionary as determined by the Compensation Committee. The Company uses adjusted
EPS in connection with the bonus plan because it believes this measure enables a more thorough
evaluation of the Company’s current performance as compared to past performance and provides a
better baseline for assessing the Company’s future earnings expectations.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Swordfish Financial,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities listed below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      | Nature Vision, Inc.                   | 
|--------------------- | ------------------------------------- | 
|                      |                                       | 
|Date: August 19, 2014 | By: /s/ Clark Ortiz                   | 
|                      | Clark Ortiz                           | 
|                      | Chief Executive Officer and President | 
|                      | (principal executive officer)         | 
|                      |                                       | 
|Date: August 19, 2014 | By: /s/ K. Bryce Toussaint            | 
|                      | K. Bryce Toussaint                    | 
|                      | Acting Chief Financial Officer        | 
|                      | (principal financial officer)         | 



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