alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 59640)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Environmental Health Sciences Review Committee; EHS Training Grants Review Meeting.                    

*Date:*                         November 12-13, 2008.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Sheraton Chapel Hill, One Europa Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27517.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Linda K Bass, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Nat'l. Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-24, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 541-1307.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk Estimation—Health Risks from Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 1, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

 [FR Doc. E8-23783 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Harold R. DAVIS, Appellant, v. BOCA RATON LAND CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Feb. 5, 1954.

Rehearing Denied March 15, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Amelia Stayton and Ray



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

February 9, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00820

- CV

Buddy CASTEEL and Jaret B. Casteel, Appellant s

v.

Amelia STAYTON and Ray Baugh, Appellee s
From the 38th Judicial District Court, Real County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014

- 3228

- DC Honorable Watt Murrah, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On January 30, 2015, this court issued an order directing appellant’s counsel to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for w ant of prosecution. On February 5, 2015

, appellant’s counsel filed a response to the order and a motion for extension of time seeking an additional thirty days to file appellant’s brief. The motion is GRANTED . Appellant’s brief is due to be filed no late than February 19, 2015

. Absent extenuating circumstances, no further extensions wil l be granted.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day of February, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 8Federal Reserve Bank of: St. LouisFilings received during the week ending June 27, 2009FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodCITIZENS NATIONAL BANCORP, INC.                                                                                         CICNotice by Charles B. Edel, Trustee of the Charles B. Edel Trust, and Suzanne Edel, Trustee of the Suzanne Edel Trust, both of Springfield, Missouri, acting in concert to increase control of Citizens National Bancorp, Inc., Springfield, Missouri.Newspaper: 06/30/2009Federal Register: 07/31/2009
Order entered September 6 , 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 00440

- CV

LONNIE CHARLES CHALM ERS, Appellant

V.

THE CITY DALLAS POLI CE DEPARTMENT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10

- 14982



### O RDER

We GRANT appellee’s August 28, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file a brief.

Appellee shall file its brief on or before September 30, 2013.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 10, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50097

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE DE JESUS HERNANDEZ BETANCOURT, also known as Jose Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

(3:05-CR-1082-ALL)

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose De Jesus Hernandez Betancourt appeals his 46-month

sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for one count of mail

fraud. Hernandez contends: for sentencing, the Government

withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland,

373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); the district court erred by failing to

order its disclosure and using, at sentencing, it to calculate the

amount of loss and number of victims; and his counsel rendered

ineffective assistance (IAC) by failing to obtain that evidence.
2

Because Hernandez fails to show the exculpatory nature of the

documents he requested, his Brady claim is without merit. See

United States v. Moore, 452 F.3d 382, 387 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

127 S. Ct. 423 (2006).

To the extent Hernandez challenges the sentencing findings,

his claim is barred by the appeal waiver in his plea agreement.

See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). His

claim that the district court erred in failing to order the

disclosure of exculpatory evidence is without merit because, as

noted, he fails to show the exculpatory nature of the requested

documents.

Finally, because Hernandez did not assert IAC in district

court, there was no opportunity to develop a record on the issue.

Accordingly, we decline to review the claim on direct appeal. See

United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED
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).

The Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, District Judge for the U.S. ***

District Court for Northern Illinois, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES LEE LIKE,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

JACK PALMER,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-17571

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00255-RCJ-VPC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 6, 2011** 

San Francisco, California

Before: TROTT and BEA, Circuit Judges, and PALLMEYER, District Judge.*** 

James Like, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We review de novo the district court’s decision

FILED

DEC 09 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 Like argues that his sentence differs from that in Andrade because he lacks 1

the possibility of parole. We are not persuaded that the availability of parole in

other situations requires a different result here.

to deny a § 2254 habeas petition. Gonzalez v. Knowles, 515 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th

Cir. 2008). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm. The

parties are familiar with the facts underlying the appeal and thus we do not include

them here.

Like challenges his sentence of life without parole for grand larceny auto

under Nevada’s habitual criminal act, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.010, based on three

prior convictions for forgery, attempted grand larceny, and attempted theft, as cruel

and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Because Like filed his

federal habeas petition after April 26, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) applies. The Nevada Supreme Court’s decision

affirming Like’s sentence was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of,

clearly established federal law. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 77 (2003)

(two consecutive twenty-five-years-to-life sentences under California three-strikes

law based on several prior convictions did not violate the Eighth Amendment).1

Therefore, the district court properly denied habeas relief.

AFFIRMED.
#### In re ESTATE OF Grace Webster TAYLOR.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


                         Independent Auditors' Consent



The Board of Directors
Ciprico Inc.:

         We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 2-89276, 2-96358, 33-5746, 33-14466, 33-47840, 33-78116,
33-64999, 33-65001, 333-02931 and 333-02933) on Form S-8 of Ciprico Inc. of our
report dated November 6, 1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of
Ciprico Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the two-year period ended September 30, 1996, which report
appears in the September 30, 1997 Form 10-KSB of Ciprico Inc.



/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
December 15, 1997
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, George H. Bruns, Jr. certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Giga-tronics, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: 6/13/05      /s/ GEORGE H. BRUNS, JR
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Louis I. Levinsohn, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

February 26, 1957.

*606
      *Rodecker, Bricker & Levinsohn*for petitioner.

Maximilian Moss, S.

This is a proceeding to establish a lost will pursuant to section 143 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. The testimony of the two subscribing witnesses establishes that decedent executed a will on or about February 27, 1948, in full compliance with the provisions of section 21 of the Decedent Estate Law and that at that time he was of sound mind and under no restraint.

The attorney draftsman, who was also one of the subscribing witnesses, testified that the will was turned over to decedent’s son for safekeeping immediately upon its execution. He further testified that he made an exact carbon copy of the original will which he conformed and kept in his files. The said carbon counterpart has been offered for probate by petitioner as decedent’s will.

Decedent’s son testified that he kept the original will for safekeeping at all times since its execution in his home. He further testified that decedent never had access to the will and never came to him for it. During the period that decedent’s son had the will for safekeeping he moved his place of residence twice. After decedent’s death he made a search for the will among the records and files in his home and place of business but found no trace of it. He further testified that his search revealed that in addition to decedent’s will other papers including his own will were lost.

The evidence establishes that the decedent never had possession of the will after its execution and delivery to his son for safekeeping. The facts in the record further establish that the will was either in existence at the time of his death or that it was accidentally lost or destroyed in his lifetime without his knowledge or consent. Under such circumstances the law deems the will to have been constructively fraudulently destroyed as to decedent and the legal result is the same as if the will were in *607existence at the time of his death (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 143; *Schultz*v. *Schultz,*35 N. Y. 653; *Matter of Bly,*281 App. Div. 769; *Matter of Pinney,*72 N. Y. S. 2d 895).

The conformed carbon imprint filed by petitioner will be admitted to probate as decedent’s will. The decree will incorporate the provisions of said instrument. Submit decree.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

SENIOR JUDGE RICHARD P. MATSCH

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02550-RPM

SIAMAK AMIRINOOR v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02584-RPM

KEVIN STRINGER, et al., v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02817-RPM

DANIEL JONES v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02819-RPM

ROBERT DURAN v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; and

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00876-RPM

PAUL ALFREDO GARCIA-PEREZ, et al., v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING CONFERENCE

____________________________________________________________________________ 

Pursuant to the Orders entered in the captioned cases by this Court on April 23,

2012, it is

ORDERED that a conference to enable the development of a coordinated case

management order is scheduled for May 18, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. in the Conference

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

Denver, Colorado.

Dated: April 24th, 2012.

 BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

_________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02584-RPM Document 39 Filed 04/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Russell Gene KELLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 75-3907

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 26, 1977.

Raymond C. Caballero, El Paso, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

John Clark, U. S. Atty., LeRoy Morgan Jahn, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., William B. Hardie, El Paso, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before COLEMAN, GOLDBERG and GEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Russell Gene Kelley appeals his conviction for escaping from a federal “halfway house.” See 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Kelley concededly failed to return from a weekend furlough, remaining at large for eighteen unauthorized days until the time of his arrest. He claims that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on his defense of coercion. Kelley’s requested instruction acknowledged, however, that the coercion defense would be applicable only if the coercing facts induced Kelley to fear impending death or serious bodily injury to himself or to his family. Here the coercing facts consisted solely of Kelley’s concern for his deteriorating family situation, and there was no evidence from which the jury could have found that Kelley feared impending death or serious bodily injury. The court therefore did not err in refusing to give Kelley’s requested instruction.

Kelley’s coercion request did, however, highlight the necessity to instruct the jury properly with respect to the intent required under § 751. The court instructed the jury as follows:

> Knowingly is to be aware or to do an act or to accomplish an intended result or goal with knowledge, wilfully and intentionally. An act is done wilfully and knowingly if done with knowledge and specific intent.

> *43Specific intent as the term implies means more than a general intent to commit the act. To establish specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt, the Government must prove that a Defendant knowingly did an act that the law forbids or knowingly failed to do an act which the law requires, purposely intending to violate the law. Such intent may be determined as I have said by direct and circumstantial evidence from all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.

This instruction was adequate.

We have examined Kelley’s remaining contentions and find them without merit.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1


                                 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned, the trustee (the "Trustee") in respect of the Trust
Certificates (TRUCs) Series 2002-1, hereby certifies to Bear Stearns Depositor
Inc. as follows:

1.    I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
      8-K filed by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, solely as Trustee for
      the Trust Certificates (TRUCs) Series 2002-1 Trust and any distribution
      reports filed in respect of the Trust during the 2006 calendar year;

2.    The information in those reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any
      untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
      necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
      under which such statements were made, no misleading as of the last day
      of the period covered by the annual report;

3.    The distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the
      depositor by the Trustee under the trust agreement for inclusion in
      these reports is included in such reports; and

4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Trustee
      under the trust agreement and except as disclosed in these reports, the
      Trustee has fulfilled its obligations under the trust agreement.


                        U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL
                        ASSOCIATION


                        By:    /s/ David J. Kolibachuk
                              ------------------------------
                        Name: David J. Kolibachuk
                        Title: Vice President
                        Date: March 27, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               9,777
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       39,506
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        204,442
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   286,147
<PP&E>                                             337,999
<DEPRECIATION>                                     194,131
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     444,607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              652,580
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1,140
<OTHER-SE>                                        (209,113)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       444,607
<SALES>                                             45,154
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    45,154
<CGS>                                               24,806
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       24,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,129,807
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,109,459)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,109,459)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,109,459)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>