alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 7028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2159]



[[Page 7028]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6091]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Terra Cotta Warriors: Guardians of the First 
Emperor''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Terra Cotta Warriors: Guardians of the 
First Emperor'', imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within 
the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or 
custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at the Bowers Museum, Santa Ana, California, from on or 
about May 18, 2008, until on or about October 12, 2008; at the High 
Museum of Art, Atlanta, Georgia, from on or about November 15, 2008, 
until on or about April 26, 2009; at the Houston Museum of Natural 
Sciences, Houston, Texas, from on or about May 18, 2009, until on or 
about September 27, 2009; and at the National Geographic Society, 
Washington, DC, from on or about November 19, 2009, until on or about 
March 31, 2010; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to 
be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these 
Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Richard Lahne, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/
453-8058). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: January 30, 2008.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E8-2159 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 76 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.76

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and 
                           for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 107-44 is 
further amended by striking the date specified in section 107(c) and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``December 15, 2001''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6341

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GROVER CARROLL GIBSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CR-99-102; CA-02-541-2)

Submitted: October 3, 2003 Decided: December 14, 2004

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Grover Carroll Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Grover Carroll Gibson appeals the district court’s denial

of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The district court granted

a certificate of appealability. On appeal, Gibson argues that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed

to object to his offense level adjustment under U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B) (1998) (adjustment based on the

number of firearms involved in the offense). Specifically, Gibson

asserts that, because he was permitted under North Carolina law to

possess firearms in his home, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-415.1(a)

(Supp. 1998), the firearms recovered from his home could not be

used to calculate the number of firearms involved in his offense.

See USSG § 2K2.1, comment. (n.9) (“For purposes of calculating the

number of firearms under subsection (b)(1), count only those

firearms that were . . . unlawfully possessed.”).

However, we find that any objection by counsel would have

been futile. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) (2000), does

prevent federal prosecution for a felon in possession of a firearm

when a state has restored a person’s civil rights on the predicate

felony. But when, as here, a state restricts a felon from

possessing firearms in certain situations (e.g., outside of his

home or business), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) prohibits him from possessing

any guns at all, even those permitted under state law. See United

States v. Caron, 524 U.S. 308, 315-17 (1998). Thus, Gibson has
- 3 -

failed to make a prima facie showing that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,

688-89 (1984). We deny Gibson’s motions for summary judgment and

to appoint counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the

district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 66 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 66

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
                    abolish the Federal income tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 3, 2001

  Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself and Mr. Crane) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
                    abolish the Federal income tax.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Three years after the ratification of this article of amendment, 
the sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States is repealed, and the Congress shall have no power to lay and 
collect taxes on incomes, except in time of war declared by the 
Congress.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6785

ERROL DOUGLASS FULFORD-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; JAMES YONKER; JACQUELEN SHANK; CAPTAIN SOTALMYER; J. LYNCH; JAMES PEGUESS, Warden; SARGEANT MYERS; K. O. WILLIAMS, Li eutenant; CLARK JENTY, Correctional Officer II; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COOPER; SARGEANT HANCOCK; GARY FOREMAN, Lieutenant; WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN; MARVIN N. ROBBINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-1254-WDQ) Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 21, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Errol Douglass Fulford-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* To the extent Fulford-El attempts to appeal orders from Fulford-El v. Robbins , No. CA-03-1200-1, this appeal was separately docketed, and Fulford-El filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted. Therefore, we do not consider those orders. 2 PER CURIAM: Errol Douglass Fulford-El appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice. The district court dismissed the complaint because Fulford-El did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, requiring a short and plain statement of his claims. Because Fulford-El may cure this defect by amending his complaint, the dismissal without prejudice is not a final, appealable order. SeeDomino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). We therefore dismiss the appeal. * We deny Fulford-El’s motion for transfer to another institution. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 15.1
Board of Trustees and Shareholders
Security Capital Pacific Trust

Gentlemen:

Re:  Registration  Statements  Nos.  33-25317,  333-4455,  333-12885, 333-24035,
     333-26267, 333-31031, 333-31033 and 333-31405.

With  respect  to  the  subject  registration  statements,  we  acknowledge  our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated October 21, 1997 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c)  under the  Securities  Act of 1933,  such report is not
considered  a part of a  registration  statement  prepared  or  certified  by an
accountant, or a report prepared by an accountant within the meaning of sections
7 and 11 of the Act.

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Chicago, Illinois
November 13, 1997
#### Rudy Nocera, Appellant, v Tri-Delta Aggregates, Inc., Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint alleging a violation of Labor Law §241 (6). Defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff was not engaged in construction work at the time of his accident *(see,*12 NYCRR 23-1.4 [b] [13]; *Lozo v Crown Zellerbach Corp.,*142 AD2d 949; *DaBolt v Bethlehem Steel Corp.,*92 AD2d 70, 73, *lv dismissed*60 NY2d 554; *cf., DeTommaso v Fitzgerald Constr. Corp.,*138 AD2d 341, 343, *lv denied 73*NY2d 701; *Malczewski v Cannon Design,*125 AD2d 941) or that the accident did not occur in a location that was part of the work area owned or controlled by defendant *868
      *(see,*Labor Law § 241 [6]; 12 NYCRR 23-1.4 [b] [13]; *La France v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*89 AD2d 757, 758, *appeal dismissed*58 NY2d 747). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jagueline Pollizzotti

V .

Town of Hampton, et at .

Civil No. 05-cv-204-JD

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 41 .1, as neither an agreement for

judgment nor a stipulation for dismissal has been filed, this case is herewith dismissed with

prejudice .

SO ORDERED.

July 12, 2006 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judg e

cc: Lawrence A . Vogelman, Esq.

Brian J. S. Cullen, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00204-JD Document 8 Filed 07/12/06 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Eufemio Morales v. State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00532-CV

Trial court case number: 74453

Trial court: 27th District Court of Bell County

Date motion filed: September 4, 2018

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.3.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Lloyd.

Date: September 20, 2018
#### In the Matter of Steven Winston, a Suspended Attorney.

Respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York effective July 3, 1990. Concur —Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Kassal, Smith, and Rubin, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael McMahon, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered September 11, 1986, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that the factual admissions which he made during the plea allocution were sufficient to establish the elements of the crime *(see, People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662). Furthermore, the court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. Such a decision rests within the sound discretion of the sentencing court *(see, People v Brown,*142 AD2d 683). The plea allocution reveals that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty and expressed satisfaction with the representation provided by his attorney *(see, People v Harris,*
      *58961 NY2d 9). The evidence elicited at the hearing on the defendant’s motion failed to support his claim that he was coerced into pleading guilty. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Phillips *v.*The State of Ohio.

(No. 24271

Decided September 20, 1933.)

*Mr. Ben A. Bickley,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Paul Baden,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Kim-ball Scott,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Bevis and Jones, JJ., concur.

Day, J., not participating.
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 15 Filed 03/04/05 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 15 Filed 03/04/05 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 15 Filed 03/04/05 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 15 Filed 03/04/05 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 15 Filed 03/04/05 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 15 Filed 03/04/05 Page 6 of 6
#### DOMINGUEZ v. AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. et al.

No. 3037.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1948.

Writ of Error Granted Jan. 10, 1949.

For former opinion, see 37 So.2d 40.

Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Fuller, of Baton Rouge, and Carroll Buck, of Amite, for appellants.

Ponder & Ponder, of Amite, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this case, the plaintiff-appellee and defendants-appellants have filed applications for rehearing.

In his application for rehearing, plaintiff-appellee contends that our decree is “repugnant and contrary to the decree” in the cases of Haeuser v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. et al., La.App., 187 So. 684, and Stanley v. Cryer Drilling Company et al., 213 La. 980, 36 So.2d 9. In our opinion we differentiated these cases from the case at bar.

We would have refused the application of plaintiff without a Per Curiam was it not for the statement therein made by the plaintiff that the defendant George Thomas knew “the negro truck driver Saul Williams and all negroes used the truck whenever they wanted and that he continued to permit them to retain custody of the trucks.” We find this statement to be false and unfounded. The evidence is to the contrary. Defendant Thomas unqualifiedly testified that Williams had his permission only to take the truck to his, Williams’, house in the evening so that he could pick up his fellow employees the following morning. Defendant Thomas is emphatic in his testimony, that Saul Williams did not have his permission to use the truck at all at night and that he did not know that Williams ever used the truck at night. Furthermore, Williams testified that he did not have Thomas’ permission to use the truck at night nor did he use the truck at night but on the night of the accident.

The application of defendants-appellants is perfunctory.

Both applications refused.
exv10wv



 




Exhibit 10-V



Description of Special 2005



Performance Incentive Arrangement




On March 9, 2005, the Compensation Committee
of the Board of Directors of the Company approved a special
performance bonus arrangement for certain executive officers and
the specific performance goals and business criterion to be used
for purposes of determining cash awards for 2005 under the
arrangement. The Company’s Chief Executive Officer will not
participate in this arrangement. The performance criterion to be
used for 2005 under the plan is achieving total company
specified cost reductions.




Based on business performance results for 2005
against the targeted levels established for the criterion, the
Compensation Committee will determine the percentage of the
target award that is earned, which could range between 0% and
100% depending on actual performance achieved relative to the
target level. In addition, individual awards may be increased or
decreased based on individual leadership and contribution toward
the target to reward a person’s performance.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Daniel Frost

v. Case No. 05-cv-225-SM

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner,

U.S. Social Security Administration

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

 Muirhead dated May 21, 2007, no objection having been filed. The

 Commissioner’s Motion to Affirm the Decision is granted, and the 

claimant’s motion to reverse the decision of the Commissioner is denied. The

Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the 

case.

SO ORDERED.

April 12, 2007 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Vicki S. Roundy, Esq.

David L. Broderick, AUSA

Case 1:05-cv-00225-SM Document 14 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 1
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00263

- CR

IN RE: MICHAEL DOWDEN

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION In Cass County, Texas, Michael Dowden was convicted on two charges of delivery of a controlled substance, specifically two different types of narcotic painkillers, and sentenced to sixty

- five years ’ and two years’ confinement, respectively, with the sentences to run concurrently. Dowden filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which, as best we can discern, he seeks to have t his Court order DNA and fingerprint testing of “the evidence they have against [him] , ” presumably the narcotic pills themselves. We may grant a petition for writ of mandamus when the relator shows there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm and that the act to be compelled is purely ministerial. Aranda v. Dist. Clerk , 207 S.W.3d 785, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding) ( citing Winters v. Presiding Judge of Criminal Dist. Court No. Three , 118 S.W.3d 773, 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)). Here, Dowden has failed to provide this Court with any record in support of his petition. It is the relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 83 7 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) ; In re Pilgrim ’ s Pride Corp ., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198

– 99 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3. Further, the trial court is not required to consider a motion unless it is called to the court’s attention. In re Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) . Dowden’s petition is not accompanied by any proof he brought this matter before the trial court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1). Dowden’s petition3 does not inc lude an appendix or any other attempt to provide a record for our review. Without some record of this type, we are unable to grant the extraordinary relief he has requested. For the reasons stated, Dowden’s petition is denied.

Jack Carter Justice Date Submitted: December 31 , 2013 Date Decided: January 2, 2014 Do Not Publish
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. CR. 05-173-01-SM

Daniel Riendeau,

 Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant Riendeau’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document no. 33). Defendant Riendeau shall file a waiver of

speedy trial rights not later than October 31, 2006. On the filing of such

waiver, his continuance shall be effective. Trial has been rescheduled for the

month of January 2007. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial,

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Case 1:05-cr-00173-SM Document 34 Filed 10/20/06 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference is rescheduled for December 15, 2006 at 

2:30 p.m. in Room 421. 

Jury selection will take place on January 9, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 20, 2006

cc: Bruce Kenna, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00173-SM Document 34 Filed 10/20/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

SUSAN A LARA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

8:23CV173

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation for Dismissal 

with Prejudice (Filing No. 26). The Court, being advised in the premises, finds that such 

an Order is proper.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this action be 

dismissed with each party to pay its own costs.

Dated this 26th day of February, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00173-JFB-SMB Doc # 27 Filed: 02/26/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 80