alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58183 

[FR Doc. E8–23349 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–71] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–71 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: September 25, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
58184 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.047</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58185 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.048</GPH>
58186 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.049</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58187 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.050</GPH>
58188 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E8–23351 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–72] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–72 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: September 25, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
H. Res. 940 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 29, 2008. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 1528) to amend the National Trails System 

Act to designate the New England National Scenic Trail, and 

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the 

bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 

rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 

on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be 

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 

be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 

amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 

Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee 
2 

•HRES 940 EH 

amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 

as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those 

arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 

11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except 

those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 

only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 

report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 

opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 

be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 

House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 

against such amendments are waived except those arising 

under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 

and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 

may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate 

vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question 

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
3 

•HRES 940 EH 

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1528 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 

Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### Walter BRINKLEY v. STATE.

6 Div. 717.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 30, 1935.

Bains & Saunders, of Bessemer, for appellant.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

Appeal dismissed, on motion of appellant.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

POLYGROUP LIMITED MC O
, Appellant

v.

WILLIS ELECTRIC COMP ANY, LTD
, Appellee

______________________

2018

- 1745, 2018

- 1746, 2018

- 1747

______________________
Appeal s from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Paten t Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016

- 00800, IPR2016

- 00801, IPR2016

- 01609, IPR2016

- 01610, IPR2016

- 0 1611, IPR2016

- 01612, IPR2016

- 01613.

______________________

ON PETITION FOR PANE L REHEARING

______________________

Before D YK
, R EYNA
, and H UGHES
, Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

Appellant Polygroup Limited MCO filed a p etition for

p anel r ehearing. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by Appellee Willis Elec tric Co mpany, Ltd

.POLYGROUP LTD MCO v. WILLIS ELEC

. CO
., LTD 2

Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) Polygroup Limited MCO’s petition for panel rehearing is granted.

(2) The previous nonpreceden tial opinion and judgment in this appeal, issued January 28, 2019, arewithdrawn and replaced with the modified nonprecedential opinion and judgment accompanying this order.

F OR THE C OURT

March 28, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 21



                         LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


     The Partnership was a general partner in JMB-40 Broad Street
Associates, an Illinois general partnership which held title to the 40
Broad Street Building prior to its sale in December, 1997.  The Partnership
was a general partner in Royal Executive Park-I, a New York general
partnership which held title to the Royal Executive Park Office Complex
prior to its sale in December, 1997.  Reference is made to the Notes for a
summary description of the terms of such partnership agreements.  The
Partnership's interest in the foregoing joint venture partnerships, and the
results of their operations are included in the financial statements of the
Partnership filed with this annual report.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel J. Haubrick, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Santagata, J.), rendered February 27, 1990, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

The defendant waived his right to appeal as part of his plea agreement. As we find that this waiver was made freely, knowingly and voluntarily, the defendant’s appeal must be dismissed *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Kunzeman, Sullivan and Miller, JJ., concur.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

D'ANGELO M. NICHOLS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D22-4023 February 16, 2024 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Thomas Krug, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### Fred CRENSHAW v. STATE.

1 Div. 208.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 30, 1935.

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

Appeal dismissed, on motion of appellant
Case No. 1:11-cr-00362-WJM Document 252 filed 09/05/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00362-WJM Document 252 filed 09/05/13 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00362-WJM Document 252 filed 09/05/13 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00362-WJM Document 252 filed 09/05/13 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00362-WJM Document 252 filed 09/05/13 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00362-WJM Document 252 filed 09/05/13 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00362-WJM Document 252 filed 09/05/13 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00362-WJM Document 252 filed 09/05/13 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 8
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Smith, Also Known as Henry Isaac, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.), rendered June 3, 1988, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0605 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVID ALAN WARREN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 17, 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 9 2024

04/09/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0605
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57153-57154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23141]


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

THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; Meeting of Arts 
and Artifacts Indemnity Panel

AGENCY: The National Endowment for the Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463 as amended) notice is hereby given that a meeting of 
the Arts and Artifacts Domestic Indemnity Panel of the Federal Council 
on the Arts and the Humanities will be held at 1100 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, in Room 730, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., 
on Monday, October 20, 2008.
    The purpose of the meeting is to review applications for 
Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts 
and the Humanities for exhibitions beginning after December 1, 2008.
    Because the proposed meeting will consider financial and commercial 
data and because it is important to keep values of objects, methods of 
transportation and security measures confidential, pursuant to the 
authority granted me by the Chairman's

[[Page 57154]]

Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings, dated 
July 19, 1993, I have determined that the meeting would fall within 
exemption (4) of 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and that it is essential to close the 
meeting to protect the free exchange of views and to avoid interference 
with the operations of the Committee.
    It is suggested that those desiring more specific information 
contact Advisory Committee Management Officer, Michael P. McDonald, 
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, or call 202-606-
8322.

Michael P. McDonald,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-23141 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
1

 “[#55]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a

specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this

convention throughout this order.

2

 This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. MoralesFernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122. In addition, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his

pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007);

Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th

Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No.11-cv-02291-REB-MJW

VERNE JAY MERRELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID ALLRED, D.O. FCC Health Services, and

PATRICIA MITCHELL, Program Mgt Officer, Health Services,

in their individual and professional capacities,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Blackburn, J.

The matter before me is the magistrate judge’s Recommendation on Plaintiff’s

Motion for Injunctive Relief (Docket No. 3) and Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss (Docket

No. 34) [#55]1 filed July 17, 2012. I approve the unopposed recommendation.

No objections have been filed to the recommendation. Thus, I review it only for plain

error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116,

1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2

 Finding no such error in the magistrate judge’s recommended

disposition, I find and conclude that the recommendation should be approved and adopted. 

Case 1:11-cv-02291-REB-MJW Document 66 Filed 08/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Docket No.

3) and Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss (Docket No. 34) [#55] filed July 17, 2012, is

APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;

2. That plaintiff’s Prisoner’s Motion for Injunctive Relief [#3] filed August 31, 2011, is

DENIED AS MOOT; and

3. That Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss [#34] filed February 16, 2012, is GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. That the motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Prisoner Complaint [#1] filed

August 31, 2011, can be construed to assert a cause of action arising under the Free Exercise

Clause of the First Amendment and Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403

U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and any such claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; and

b. That in all other respects, the motion is DENIED.

Dated August 24, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02291-REB-MJW Document 66 Filed 08/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.2 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

To the Board of Directors 

Heritage Bankshares, Inc. 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inregistration statements No. 333-112214 on Form S-8 of Heritage Bankshares, Inc. of our report dated March 23, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Heritage Bankshares, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006,and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in this annual report on Form 10-KSB. 

 

Galax, Virginia 

March 23, 2007 

 

79
Exhibit 99.1



FOOTHILL INDEPENDENT BANCORP



Annual Report on Form 10-K

for the Year ended December 31, 2002



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Foothill Independent Bancorp (the
Company), hereby certifies that (i) he Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Annual Report), to which this Certification is
an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



Dated: March 25, 2003



/s/    GEORGE E.
LANGLEYGeorge E. Langley President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2126

In Re: BEVERLY L. HENNAGER; LOUIS A. JENNINGS,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(1:15-cv-00149-LO-TCB)

Submitted: December 9, 2016 Decided: January 4, 2017

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Beverly L. Hennager, Louis A. Jennings, Petitioners Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Beverly L. Hennager and Louis A. Jennings petition for a 

writ of mandamus, asking that this court quash an order of the 

district court and direct the district court judge to recuse 

himself from the underlying dissolution action. Petitioners 

have also filed a motion to expedite. We deny mandamus relief.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in 

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 

394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-

17 (4th Cir. 2003). In fact, mandamus relief is available only 

when there are no other means by which the relief sought could 

be granted, see Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517, and the party has 

established they have a clear and indisputable right to the 

relief sought, see In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 

2001). 

It is well established that mandamus may not be used as a 

substitute for appeal. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 97 

(1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 

2007); see Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517. Although “a district 

judge’s refusal to disqualify himself can be reviewed in this 

circuit by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus[,]” a writ 

of mandamus will not issue “when all that is shown is that the 

district court abused its discretion when making the challenged 

ruling.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987). 
3

We have reviewed Petitioners’ filings and conclude that 

Petitioners have not established a clear and indisputable right 

to the relief sought. Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. We 

deny as moot Petitioners’ motion to expedite. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02476-RPM

BANNOCK STREET CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff,

v.

40/86 MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC.,

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16, it is

ORDERED that a scheduling conference will be held on January 31, 2012, at 10:30 a.m.

in the Conference Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout

Street, Denver, Colorado. Counsel are directed to comply with the Instructions for Preparation of

Scheduling Order which may be found at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges/judges.aspx

(Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch Procedures) and use the format provided with those instructions

(Rev. 1/08). The proposed order (original only) on paper, shall be submitted directly to chambers

by 4:00 p.m. on January 26, 2012.

 The conference is conducted with lead counsel present in person. No parties or

representatives of parties will be permitted to attend.

DATED: December 27th, 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

__________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02476-RPM Document 12 Filed 12/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Case 1:11-cv-02317-LTB Document 1 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13
Case 1:11-cv-02317-LTB Document 1 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 13
Case 1:11-cv-02317-LTB Document 1 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 13
Case 1:11-cv-02317-LTB Document 1 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 13
Case 1:11-cv-02317-LTB Document 1 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 13
Case 1:11-cv-02317-LTB Document 1 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 13
Case 1:11-cv-02317-LTB Document 1 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 13
Case 1:11-cv-02317-LTB Document 1 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 13
Case 1:11-cv-02317-LTB Document 1 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 13
Case 1:11-cv-02317-LTB Document 1 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 13
Case 1:11-cv-02317-LTB Document 1 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 13
Case 1:11-cv-02317-LTB Document 1 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 13
Case 1:11-cv-02317-LTB Document 1 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 13
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: In re Derrick A. Polly , Relator

Appellate case number s : 01

- 15

- 00 849

- C V

Trial court case number s : 201 4

- 38 52 4

Trial court s : 164th District Court s of Harris County

The panel has voted to deny relator’s motion for rehearing of the memorandum

opinion, issued on October 29, 2015, granting relator’s motion for leave to file a petition

for writ of mandamus, but denying his petition

.

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes



Panel consists of: Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Lloyd

Date: November 24, 2015