alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 177 (Thursday, September 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21148]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory Board

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 
2, notice is hereby given that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
(MEP) Advisory Board, National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) will meet Wednesday, October 22, 2008, from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
The MEP Advisory Board is composed of 10 members appointed by the 
Director of NIST who were selected for their expertise in the area of 
industrial extension and their work on behalf of smaller manufacturers. 
The Board was established to fill a need for outside input on MEP. MEP 
is a unique program consisting of centers across the United States and 
Puerto Rico, with partnerships at the state, federal, and local levels. 
The Board works closely with MEP to provide input and advice on MEP's 
programs, plans, and policies. For this meeting, discussions will focus 
on updates of MEP current key initiatives, MEP's next generation 
strategic plan and opportunities for MEP in emerging industries. The 
agenda may change to accommodate Board business.

DATES: The meeting will convene October 22, 2008 at 11 a.m. and will 
adjourn at 5 p.m. on October 22, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at The Inn & Conference Center, 
University of Maryland University College, 3501 University Blvd E, 
Adelphi, Maryland 20783. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting should 
submit name, e-mail address and phone number to Susan Hayduk 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#572422243639793f362e33223c17393e242379303821"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a292f293b3474323b233e2f311a3433292e743d352c">[email protected]</span></a> or 301-975-5615) no later than October 17, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Lellock, Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800, telephone number (301) 975-4269.

    Dated: September 2, 2008.
James M. Turner,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. E8-21148 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t 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 l unani 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 UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. L UI S AL B E R T O C AS T I L L O- OS UN A, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 10347 D. C . No . 2 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 3 9 8 - DG C ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona D a vi d G . C a m pbe l l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 ** B e f o r e : W A R D L A W , C L I F T O N , an dN .R . S M I T H , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . L ui s A lbe rt o C a s t i l l o- O s unaappe a l s f r om hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on and 18- m o n th s e n te n c e f

o rh arb o r in g an ille g a l a lie n , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1324( a ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) . P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), C as t i l l o-O suna’ s c ou nselhas f i l ed a bri ef

st at i ng there ar e no g roun ds for r el i ef , 

# FI LED SEP 19 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 10347 2 a l ong w i th am ot i on t o w i thdr aw a s c ouns e l of r e c or d. W e ha ve pr ovi de d C a s t i l l oO su n a w i th th e o p p o rtu n i ty t o fi l e a p ro se sup p l em en t al b ri ef. N o p ro se s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f

orans w e r i ng br i e f

ha s be e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o ar g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. W e d is m is s in lig h t o f

th e v a lidap p e a l w a iv e r . See U ni ted States v. N

gu ye n , 235 F . 3d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s GR AN T E D. DI S MI S S E D.
Filed pursuant to
                                                                  Rule 424(b)(2)
                                                      Registration No. 333-32065

                                    CITICORP
                               U.S. $2,000,000,000
                       Medium-Term Senior Notes, Series F
                               U.S. $1,000,000,000
                    Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series F
                Due From 9 Months to 60 Years From Date of Issue

         Pricing Supplement, dated November 5, 1997 (the "Pricing Supplement")
to Prospectus Supplement, dated October 27, 1997 (the "Prospectus Supplement");
to Prospectus, dated October 27, 1997 (the "Base Prospectus" and collectively
with the Pricing Supplement and the Prospectus Supplement, the "Prospectus")

                              Description of Notes

         The terms of the Notes set forth in this Pricing Supplement supplement
and modify, to the extent applicable, the description of general terms and
provisions of Citicorp's Medium-Term Senior Notes, Series F set forth in the
accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement. Capitalized terms not defined
herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the accompanying
Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement.

SUMMARY OF TERMS:

Title of Notes:                           6.38% Senior Notes Due November 12,
                                          2002 (the "Notes").

Aggregate
  Principal Amount:                       $50,000,000.00.

Issue Date:                               November 10, 1997.

Stated Maturity Date:                     November 12, 2002.

Interest Rate:                            6.38%.

Interest Commencement Date:               November 10, 1997.

Interest Payment Dates:                   Semi-annually, on the 12th of each May
                                          and November, commencing May 12, 1998,
                                          and at Stated Maturity.

Redemption:                               The Notes are not subject to
                                          redemption prior to the Maturity Date.

Sinking Fund:                             The Notes are not subject to any
                                          sinking fund.


                                        1
<PAGE>

Regular Record Dates:                     The date that is 15 calendar days
                                          prior to the related Interest Payment
                                          Date.

Purchaser:                                Lehman Brothers Inc.

Discount:                                 .043%.

Price to Public:                          100.00%.

CUSIP Number:                             17303 LSU 6.


                                        2
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 b y the rules, it is Case: 23-1233 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 08/11/2023W ILLIAMS V

. OPM 2

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
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

HARRY LEE REDDS, Jr.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-50320

D.C. No. 3:08-cr-01835-BTM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 24, 2013** 

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Harry Lee Redds, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking

supervised release and the sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Redds’s counsel has filed a brief stating that

there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

FILED

OCT 03 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-50320

record. We have provided Redds the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

A review of the record indicates that this appeal is moot because Redds’s

supervised release has again been revoked. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7

(1998). We accordingly dismiss the appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Allan Cullen 

v. Case No. 04-cv-339-PB

NH State Prison, Warden

O R D E R

The petitioner has failed to comply with the Endorsed Order dated December 17, 2009, by

Magistrate Judge James R. Muirhead, accordingly, the petition is dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

February 3, 2010 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Allan Cullen, Pro Se

Case 1:04-cv-00339-PB Document 33 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 1
#### GOEBEL v. JACKSON BREWING CO. et al.

No. 18306.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 10, 1947.

Bentley G. Byrnes, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellee.

Rightor & Sellers, of New Orleans, for appellants.

PER CURIAM.

Considering the joint motion of Malcolm A. Goebel, plaintiff and appellee, through his attorney, Bentley G. Byrnes, Jr., and of Jackson Brewing Company and the Employers Liability Assurance Company, Ltd., defendants and appellants, through their attorneys, Edward Rightor and W. H. Sellers, to the effect that the judgment in this case should be reversed and the cause remanded to the Civil District Court for retrial because of the fact that it has been impossible to have the testimony adduced at the trial below transcribed by the Court Reporter, and that it is in the best interest of all parties that the case should be retried in its entirety.

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and it is annulled, avoided and reversed and it is now ordered that this cause be remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans for retrial.

Reversed and remanded.
Change of Control Agreements



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENTS 
  
 C.R. Dwiggins, Jr. 
 Russell N. Fairbanks, Jr. 
 David C. Godwin 
 Steven M. Helmbrecht 
 John W. Hengesh, Jr. 
 Philip C. Mezey 
 Randi L. Neilson 
 Robert D. Neilson 
 LeRoy D. Nosbaum 
 Jemima G. Scarpelli 
 Douglas L. Staker 
 Malcolm Unsworth 
 Russell E. Vanos 
 Robert W. Whitney 
 John M. Woolard
#### Kenneth L. JACKSON and Jennie E. Jackson, his wife, Appellants, v. Moon LUEG and Ella May Lueg, his wife, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Nov. 30, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
different from those raised in his previous petition. 2 See NRS

34.810(1)(b)(2); NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3).

Appellant claimed that failure to raise certain claims in his previous petition was caused by ineffective assistance of his trial and appellate counsel. Appellant's claim lacks merit as a procedurally barred claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot constitute cause for additional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). Moreover, appellant failed to explain why he could not have raised his current claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in his first petition. See id. at 253, 71 P.3d at 506.

Next, appellant claimed that failure to consider his claims on the merits would be a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to demonstrate a fundamental miscarriage of justice, a petitioner must make a colorable showing of actual innocence—factual innocence, not legal innocence. Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001); Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998). Appellant did not demonstrate actual innocence because he failed to show that "it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of. . . new evidence." Calderon, 523 U.S. at 559 (quoting Schlup v. Delo,

2 Martin v. State, Docket No. 58437 (Order of Affirmance, October 5, 2011).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2J.

J. Cherry

,tilfv4Att 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see also Pellegrini, 117 Nev. at 887, 34 P.3d at 537; Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's petition as procedurally barred. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Hardesty

Parraguirre

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Donald Dee Martin Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 3
| **Commitments and Contingent Liabilities (Narrative) (Details) $ in Millions** | 9 Months Ended |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]**                        |           |
| Estimate for which the risk of loss is more than remote but not probable       | $ 1            |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Estimate for which the risk of loss is more than remote but not probable
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cinf_EstimateforWhichTheRiskofLossisMorethanRemoteButNotProbable**Namespace Prefix:**cinf_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
EXHIBIT 32





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


The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this report on Form 10-K for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.





Steven J. Johnston, the chief executive officer, and Michael J. Sewell, the chief financial officer, of Cincinnati Financial Corporation each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:


|   |                                                                                                   
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                          
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cincinnati Financial Corporation.




Date: February 23, 2018








/S/ Steven J. Johnston


Steven J. Johnston, FCAS, MAAA, CFA, CERA


President and Chief Executive Officer








/S/ Michael J. Sewell


Michael J. Sewell, CPA


Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer


(Principal Accounting Officer)
#### People v Paula Prim, Defendant.

Motion granted and time to take appeal extended upon condition that a notice of appeal is filed and served on or before August 13, 1990. Memorandum: We again remind defense counsel in criminal cases of their obligation to comply with 22 NYCRR 1022.11 (a). Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael DeAngelis,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 04-cv-456-SM

Hillsborough County Department

of Corrections, et al.

Defendants

O R D E R

Granted (document no. 142). Plaintiff was given until July

27, 2007, to file his response, and was provided by the clerk

with a copy of the dispositive motion at the hearing on June 29,

2007. Plaintiff's excuses for failing to file a timely response

are neither credible nor persuasive. However, the court will

allow one last extension. Plaintiff shall respond to the motion

for summary judgment on or before September 3, 2007. No further

extensions will be granted absent genuinely extraordinary

circumstances.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

August 21, 2007

cc: Michael DeAngelis, pro se

Carolyn M. Kirby, Esq.

John A. Curran, Esq.

Elizabeth L. Hurley, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00456-SM Document 152 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10(o)-13

                               AVISTA CORPORATION
                       NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Directors who were not employees of the Company received an annual retainer of
$60,000. Of that amount, two-thirds was paid automatically in Company Common
Stock pursuant to provisions of the Non-Employee Director Stock Plan. Directors
are also paid $1,200 for each meeting of the Board of Directors or any Committee
meeting of the Board. Directors who serve as Board Committee Chairs and,
therefore, have added responsibility and time requirements associated with Board
membership receive an additional $4,000 annual retainer, with the exception of
the Audit Committee Chair. The Audit Committee Chair receives an additional
$9,000 annual retainer. In addition, any non-employee director who also serves
as director of a subsidiary of the Company receives from the Company a meeting
fee of $1,200 for each subsidiary Board meeting they attend.

At the February 2005 Board meeting, the directors approved the elimination of
the Non-Employee Director Stock Plan with respect to periods after December 31,
2004. Pursuant to Section 13 of the Plan, the Board had the discretion to
terminate the Plan at any time. All amounts deferred on or before December 31,
2004 will be preserved and all existing elections with respect to those amounts
will remain in effect. In accordance with the Plan as of December 31, 2004,
those amounts will be paid when the Participant(s) ceases to be a Non-Employee
Director of the Company. For years after 2004, directors may elect each year to
receive their annual retainer in cash, in Company Common Stock, or in a
combination of both cash and Common Stock. The elections will be approved by the
full Board at each February Board meeting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      11,043,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,060,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,391,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   108,568,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (105,899,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,060,000
<SALES>                                      6,464,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,587,000
<CGS>                                          210,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  957,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,560,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,560,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,560,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
        

</TABLE>