alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 184 (Monday, September 22, 2008)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 54489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22248]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 54489]]

                Notice of September 18, 2008

                
Continuation of the National Emergency With 
                Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or 
                Support Terrorism

                On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, I 
                declared a national emergency with respect to persons 
                who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism, 
                pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers 
                Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706). I took this action to deal 
                with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the 
                national security, foreign policy, and economy of the 
                United States constituted by the grave acts of 
                terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign 
                terrorists, including the terrorist attacks in New 
                York, in Pennsylvania, and against the Pentagon 
                committed on September 11, 2001, and the continuing and 
                immediate threat of further attacks against United 
                States nationals or the United States. Because the 
                actions of these persons who commit, threaten to 
                commit, or support terrorism continue to pose an 
                unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States, 
                the national emergency declared on September 23, 2001, 
                and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that 
                emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 23, 
                2008. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of 
                the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am 
                continuing for 1 year the national emergency with 
                respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or 
                support terrorism.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, September 18, 2008

[FR Doc. E8-22248
Filed 9-19-08; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P
#### John W. YOUNG, Commissioner of Labor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Custodian of the Special Fund, and B. & S. Coal Company, Appellants, v. Osle BURGETT and Workmen’s Compensation Board of Kentucky, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 9, 1972.

*451Gemma M. Harding, Dept, of Labor, Louisville, William A. Rice, Harlan, for appellants.

W. M. Melton, Hazard, for appellees.

OSBORNE, Judge.

This is a Workmen’s Compensation proceeding wherein the Board denied recovery to the claimant who claimed to be suffering from miner’s pneumoconiosis. Claimant appealed to the Perry Circuit Court which reversed the Board. We reverse the judgment of that court.

The issue before the Board was whether or not claimant was suffering from pneumoconiosis. In all, seven doctors testified, three for the claimant and four for the appellants. There was a direct conflict in their testimony. We have held many times that the claimant must carry the burden of persuasion in these proceedings. And, where the Board has found against the party having the burden, the test is whether the evidence for the claimant was so persuasive as to require a finding in his favor. See Porter v. Goad, Ky., 404 S.W.2d 795. Where medical testimony is concerned, and that testimony is conflicting, the question of who to believe is one exclusively for the Board. Dave Hall v. Island Creek Coal Company, Ky., 474 S.W.2d 890, decided November 19, 1971.

Judgment reversed.

All concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7550

DARRICK LAMONTE KING, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-617-5-BO) Submitted: June 30, 2004 Decided: July 30, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrick Lamonte King, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* By order filed February 3, 2004, this appeal was placed in abeyance for Jones v. Braxton , No. 03-6891. In view of our recent decision in Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), we no longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones . - 2 - PER CURIAM: Darrick Lamonte King, a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as successive. * An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that King has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the extent King’s notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, we deny such authorization. SeeUnited- 3 - States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 80 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.80

                      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

 
 Appointing the day for the convening of the second session of the One 
                        Hundred Seventh Congress.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DAY FOR CONVENING OF SECOND REGULAR SESSION OF ONE HUNDRED 
              SEVENTH CONGRESS.

    The second regular session of the One Hundred Seventh Congress 
shall begin at noon on Wednesday, January 23, 2002.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR CALLING SPECIAL SESSION BEFORE CONVENING OF 
              SECOND REGULAR SESSION.

    If the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority 
Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the 
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives and the Minority Leader 
of the Senate, determine that it is in the public interest for Congress 
to assemble before the convening of the second regular session of the 
One Hundred Seventh Congress as provided in section 1--
        (1) the Speaker and Majority Leader shall notify the Members of 
    the House and Senate, respectively, of such determination and of 
    the place and time for Congress to so assemble; and
        (2) Congress shall assemble in accordance with such 
    notification.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

St. Paul’s School

v. Civil No. 06-cv-406-JD

The Travelers Indemnity Company

O R D E R

 I recuse myself. Attorney Glahn is a member of my former

law firm, which firm continues to represent me in estate planning

matters. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 3, 2006

cc: Wilbur A. Glahn, III, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00406-MML Document 5 Filed 11/03/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.1

<TABLE>
<S>                                     <C>                                         <C>
Shanda Interactive Entertainment Limited
Matter        : 710070                                                              Issued to:
Type of Share :
Certificate # :                         Date of Record      :
# of Shares   :                         Transfer to cert. # :
Amount Paid   :                         # of Shares         :
Par Value     : US$0.01                 Transfer Date       :
</TABLE>

                       INCORPORATED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

                    SHANDA INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED

         This is to certify that
                              of



         is the registered shareholder of:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         No. of Shares             Type of Share                                          Par Value
         <S>                       <C>                                                    <C>
                                                                                         US$0.01
</TABLE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         Date of Record            Certificate Number                                     % Paid
         <S>                       <C>                                                    <C>


</TABLE>

         The above shares are subject to the Memorandum and Articles of
      Association of the Company and transferrable in accordance therewith.

                   GIVEN UNDER THE COMMON SEAL OF THE COMPANY



                        Director                             Director/Secretary
-----------------------              -----------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stephen Miner

v.

New Hampshire State Prison, Warden

No. 06-fp-450

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $24.60 is due no later than March

1, 2007. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s income

credited to plaintiff’s account to be remitted by the New

Hampshire State Prison when the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 until the sum of $350.00 has been paid. Failure to pay

the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff’s request for in

forma pauperis has been granted.

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv- 450-SM .

SO ORDERED.

Date: January 29, 2007

United States Magistrate Judge

__________________________

James R. Muirhead

cc: Stephen Miner, pro se

Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

New Hampshire State Prison, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:06-cv-00450-SM Document 5 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 1 of 1

Miner v. NH State Prison, Warden Doc. 5

Dockets.Justia.com
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Juan HERAS-MONTOYA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50214.

D.C. No. CR-01-03206-BTM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 10, 2003.*

Decided March 12, 2000.

Before LEAYY, FERNANDEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Heras-Montoya appeals his conviction, following a guilty plea, for importation of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960.

Heras-Montoya’s contention that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 are facially unconstitutional following *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and that *United States v. Harris,*536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), overrules *United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558, 562 (9th Cir.) (en banc), *cert. denied,*535 U.S. 1105, 122 S.Ct. 2314, 152 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2002), and *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 573, 154 L.Ed.2d 459 (2002), is foreclosed by *United States v. Hernandez,*322 F.3d 592 (9th Cir.2003). Heras-Montoya’s contention that the indictment was defective because it did not allege that Heras-Montoya had the *mens rea*as to the drug type and quantity is foreclosed by *United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 572, 154 L.Ed.2d 458 (2002). Heras-Montoya’s conviction is

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1786

WILLIAM C. BURNHAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; AL

CANNON; ROBERT TAGUE; Lieutenant; JAMES HILL;

BONNIE S. KOONTZ, Magistrate,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-97-599-2-18AJ)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Burnham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Burnham v. Charleston Co. Sheriff's Dep't, No. CA-97-599-2-18AJ (D.S.C.

May 1, 1997). 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
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1391

To amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to provide for

an increase in the authorization of appropriations for community-based

family resource and support grants under that Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. DEFAZIO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

to provide for an increase in the authorization of appropriations for community-based family resource and support grants under that Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASED AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA4 TIONS FOR COMMUNITY-BASED FAMILY RE5 SOURCE AND SUPPORT GRANTS.

6 Section 210 of the Child Abuse Prevention and

7 Treatment Act is amended by striking ‘‘, $66,000,000 for

8 fiscal year 1997’’ and all that follows and inserting
2

•HR 1391 IH

1 ‘‘$66,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $76,000,000 for fiscal

2 year 2003, $86,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $96,000,000

3 for fiscal year 2005, and $106,000,000 for fiscal year

4 2006.’’.

Æ
B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm real estate

Volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1993...... .5 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 .9 1.5 .5 1.1

1994...... .5 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

1995...... .6 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

1996...... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.8 1.1 1.7 .7 1.0

1997...... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.6 1.1 1.5 .6 .9

1998...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.9 1.2 1.7 .8 1.0

1999...... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002...... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

2003...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.1 .7 1.3 .2 1.1

1995: Q1... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 3.1 1.3 1.8 .7 1.0

 Q2... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.6 .9 1.6 .7 1.0

 Q3... .6 .2 .4 .1 .2 2.4 .9 1.6 .6 .9

 Q4... .6 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

1996: Q1... .9 .4 .5 .2 .3 3.7 1.6 2.1 1.0 1.2

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .2 .3 3.0 1.1 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q3... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.6 .9 1.7 .7 1.0

 Q4... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.8 1.1 1.7 .7 1.0

1997: Q1... .8 .4 .4 .2 .2 3.2 1.4 1.8 .8 1.0

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.8 1.0 1.8 .8 1.0

 Q3... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.3 .8 1.4 .6 .8

 Q4... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.6 1.1 1.5 .6 .9

1998: Q1... .9 .4 .5 .2 .3 3.5 1.6 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .2 .2 2.6 1.0 1.6 .8 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.5 .9 1.6 .7 .9

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.9 1.2 1.7 .8 1.0

1999: Q1... 1.1 .5 .6 .3 .3 3.6 1.6 2.0 .9 1.0

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.7 1.0 1.7 .8 .9

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .8 1.5 .7 .8

 Q4... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000: Q1... 1.0 .4 .6 .3 .3 3.2 1.3 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .3 .3 2.7 1.0 1.7 .7 1.0

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .2 .3 2.1 .7 1.4 .6 .8

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001: Q1... 1.1 .6 .5 .1 .4 3.2 1.7 1.4 .4 1.1

 Q2... .9 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.7 1.0 1.7 .4 1.2

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .4 2.5 .9 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q4... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002: Q1... 1.2 .6 .6 .2 .4 3.3 1.6 1.7 .5 1.2

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .4 2.6 1.0 1.6 .4 1.1

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.4 .9 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q4... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

2003: Q1... 1.2 .6 .6 .1 .5 3.2 1.6 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .7 .2 .5 2.6 .9 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.3 .7 1.5 .3 1.2

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.1 .7 1.3 .2 1.1

2004: Q1... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.5 1.1 1.4 .3 1.1

 Note. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

24
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of EFJ, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Michael E. Jalbert, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company .
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                              
|---------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                 |  | /S/ Michael E. Jalbert       
|                 |  | Michael E. Jalbert           
|                 |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                 |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
|November 6, 2006 |  |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Cindy Columbia

v. Civil No. 08-cv-98-JD

John B. Gregory, D.P.M., and

Active Ankle & Foot Center, P.L.L.C.

O R D E R

Cindy Columbia, who is deaf, filed suit against John B.

Gregory, D.P.M., and his employer, Active Ankle & Foot Center,

P.L.L.C., alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Act of 1973. She alleged that Gregory and the Center provided an

American Sign Language interpreter for her first visit but

refused to provide further services, in violation of the ADA and

Section 504. Gregory and the Center filed a motion to dismiss or

alternatively for summary judgment. The court docketed the

motion as a motion to dismiss. Columbia, with the defendants’

consent, moves for clarification.

Local Rule 7.1(a) provides that “[f]ilers shall not combine

multiple motions seeking separate and distinct relief into a

single filing.” A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) and a motion for summary judgment under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 seek different remedies based

Case 1:08-cv-00098-JD Document 16 Filed 07/22/08 Page 1 of 3
2

on different standards. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56; see also Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar

Inc., 524 F.3d 315, 321 (1st Cir. 2008) (discussing differences). 

If a motion to dismiss is converted to one for summary judgment

to consider matters outside the complaint, the opposing party is

entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond. See Clorox Co.

P.R. v. Proctor & Gamble Commercial Co., 228 F.3d 24, 31 (1st

Cir. 2000).

In their motion to dismiss, the defendants argue that the

ADA claim is moot because they have agreed to provide the

disputed services to Gregory and that the Section 504 claim

should be dismissed because the Center employs fewer than fifteen

people. Both issues raise matters beyond the scope of the

complaint. Indeed, the defendants support their motion with

extrinsic evidence. Therefore, the motion will be considered as

a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the assented-to motion for

clarification (document no. 8) is granted in that the defendants’

motion (document no. 6) is converted to a motion for summary

judgment. The plaintiff shall file her response under Rule 56 on

or before thirty days from the date of this order.

Case 1:08-cv-00098-JD Document 16 Filed 07/22/08 Page 2 of 3
3

It appears that the defendants intend to provide the

American Sign Language interpreter services that the plaintiff

seeks in this suit. To conserve the parties’ and the court’s

resources, counsel shall use their best efforts to resolve this

case before continuing litigation that may be unnecessary. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

July 22, 2008

cc: Catharine A. Mallinson, Esquire

Stephen J. Soule, Esquire

Case 1:08-cv-00098-JD Document 16 Filed 07/22/08 Page 3 of 3