alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 52927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21681]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of meeting cancellation.

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

SUMMARY: On August 19, 2010 (75 FR 51238-51239), the U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights announced a business meeting to be held on Friday, August 
27, 2010 via teleconference. On Wednesday, August 25, 2010, the meeting 
was cancelled. The decision to cancel the meeting was too close in time 
to the date and time of the meeting for the publication of a 
cancellation notice to appear in advance of the scheduled meeting date. 
The details of the cancelled meeting are:

DATE AND TIME: Friday, August 27, 2010; 11:30 a.m. EDT.

PLACE: Via Teleconference.
     Public Dial In: 1-800-597-7623.
     Conference ID <greek-i> 94458880.

Meeting Agenda

    This meeting is open to the public, except where noted otherwise.

I. Approval of Agenda.
II. Program Planning.
    <bullet> New Black Panther Party Enforcement Project.
    <bullet> Sex Discrimination in Liberal Arts College Admissions 
Project.
    <bullet> Timeline for Briefing Report on English-Only in the 
Workplace.
III. State Advisory Committee Issues.
    <bullet> Wyoming SAC.
III. Approval of August 13 Meeting Minutes.
IV. Adjourn.

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, 
Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591. TDD: (202) 376-8116.
    Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an 
interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Pamela Dunston at 
least seven days prior to the meeting at 202-376-8105. TDD: (202) 376-
8116.

    Dated: August 26, 2010.
David Blackwood,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-21681 Filed 8-26-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPTEMBER 9, 2010

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-16497

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 09-00053-CR-KOB-TMP

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARCUS JEROME PROVENS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(September 9, 2010)

Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Marcus Jerome Provens appeals his convictions for possession of crack

cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm during a drug

trafficking offense, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

Provens asserts the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

Although Provens acknowledges in his brief that he entered into a guilty plea, he

does not suggest he wishes to challenge that plea as involuntary. We review de

novo whether a voluntary unconditional guilty plea waives the ability to appeal the

rulings on a particular pre-trial motion. United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317, 1320

n.4 (11th Cir. 2003).

“Generally, a voluntary, unconditional guilty plea waives all

nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings.” Id. at 1320. In order to preserve a

nonjurisdictional challenge, a defendant must, with the consent of the court and the

government, enter a conditional plea which reserves, in writing, the right to have

an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2); United States v. Betancourth, 554 F.3d 1329, 1331-32

(11th Cir. 2009) (holding a defendant’s expressed desire to reserve an issue for

appeal did not convert an unconditional plea into a conditional one in the absence

of a written agreement and the government’s consent). We will not consider a

defendant’s challenge to the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress if that

2
issue is not preserved in a conditional plea. United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550,

551 (5th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Wai-Keung, 115 F.3d 874, 877 (11th

1

Cir. 1997) (declining to discuss a suppression issue that was beyond the challenges

that the conditional guilty plea permitted). However, “an attack on the voluntary

and knowing nature of the plea can be sustained.” Wilson v. United States, 962

F.2d 996, 997 (11th Cir. 1992).

Provens’s plea before the district court was unconditional, and he does not

dispute on appeal that it was knowingly and voluntary. Accordingly, he has

waived his right to challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress,

and we do not consider it. As this is the only basis upon which he appeals, we

affirm his convictions.

AFFIRMED.

 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this 1

Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior

to close of business on September 30, 1981.

3
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders   
   MORE FACT SHEETS
        An error has occurred.
    Error: MORE FACT SHEETS is currently unavailable.  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Isaac Behar, Defendant.

County Court, Kings County,

May 21, 1957.

*237
      *Isaac Behar,*defendant in person.

*Edward 8. Silver, District Attorney (William I. Siegel*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Hyman Babshay, J.

The defendant was convicted, on his oavu plea of guilty, of an attempt to commit the crime of robbery in the second degree. Thereafter, an information was filed against him alleging that he was previously convicted of a felony. Upon arraignment, having admitted that he was the same person mentioned in the information who had been previously convicted of the felony charged therein, he was adjudged a second felony offender and on February 21, 1955, he was sentenced to State prison for a term of not less than three years and nine months and not more than seven years and six months. He *now*moves to vacate that sentence and to be resentenced as a first felony offender on the ground that his prior felony conviction, having resulted in a suspended sentence all subsequent proceedings against him should have been by indictment and not by information (Code Crim. Pro., § 470-b). In support of his contention, he cites *People*v. *Hunter*(3 Misc 2d 1032). That decision sustained his view but the Appellate Division reAersed the loAver court *(People*v. *Hunter,*3 A D 2d 926) holding that, “ It is clear from the legislative history of section 470-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the language of the 1926 amendments to sections 1941, 1942 and 1943 of the Penal Law, and the legislative purpose as explained by the Joint Legislative Committee on the Co-ordination of Civil and Criminal Practice Acts (N. Y. Legis. Doc., 1926, No. 84, p. 22) Avhich recommended the 1926 legislation, that the legislative intent was to permit the prosecuting authorities to proceed either by way of indictment, or by Avay of information after indictment, to increase the punishment Avith respect to a second felony offender, whether sentence had been imposed or suspended upon the first felony conviction. (See *People*v. *De Santis,*305 N. Y. 44.) ”

In Kings County, defendants are never indicted as second or third felony offenders unless such prior felony convictions affected the degree of the crime charged in the indictment. It is interesting to note that at the last legislative session there was enacted into law section 275-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure (L. 1957, ch. 540) which reads as follows: *“Indictment not to contain record of previous convictions. The indictment shall not allege that the defendant has previously leen convicted of any crime nor shall it set forth any record thereof, unless such prior conviction affects the degree*
      *238
      *of crime charged in the indictment. This act shall take effect July first, nineteen hundred fifty-seven.”*(Italics supplied.)

The court finds that this defendant was legally sentenced as a second felony offender. The motion for a resentence is denied. Let the District Attorney submit an order to that effect and serve a copy of it, on the defendant, together with notice of entry thereof, by mail, at the institution where he is presently confined.
#### DEPTFORD TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION v. OLYMPIC CONFERENCE AND NEW JERSEY STATE INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.

October 15, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 21, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

130333 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver & (58) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant,

v SC: 130333 COA: 253407 Dickinson CC: 02-002999-FH CARL RICHARD NANTELLE, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 11, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions p resented should be reviewed by this Court. The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is also considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appe al, we REVERSE, in part, the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REMAND this case to the Dickinson Circuit Court for
reinstatement of defendant’s conviction of unlawfully drivin g away an automobile, MCL
750.413. At the time the police discovere d the keys, they had probable cause to arrest defendant for operating a vehicl e while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The search was lawful as incident to a legal arrest. People v Arterberry , 431 Mich 381, 382

- 385 (1988).

l0614 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 21, 2006

Clerk
OFFICE OF THE. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

ATTORNEY QROVER SELLERS ~ENIRAL 
\ 

- . 

P- 

&.. . 

lbnorabtr 

‘i i: 

. . . - . . 

. 

Jo!ma88os8-#uo 8 
i ,-. 

. p-:‘’ .* n 

. ‘ ‘

. 

purpou oi mlmlnlrtorlBg ot po- ~rrlrtanor to 

tho nrody blind koaurr It pna urr1.d em]: fmz~ 

wnt of f’ublio welfan du Uu blumlua oommne4 sapwakr 1, 1943, an6 rsa4 Awut 31, 1945r 

l lloesOion, than lr it pomalbla for Un Stata Departuntof Wbllo #rlf&m 80~80 fhir 8p1widoEl8 m8w 

&owe BUl&W ottha 4WhL8&8lrtura ia O!m 

P 

to? 

375 or tba mm ot 43th &glrleOarr, wWar saam 011, 

r 

eo 672, 6em8a Bill 

aturr 18 ebaptrr 

7,~ of th Aotr of tlw 49t!3 tylr- 

@lo) or the 49th, 1945, 4i* 

lewro,Ragular mmlan, atitha qootad paaWW%Dh~ 

Sanatr Bill 317. lr found on MO 919 of the ~8~10~1 Uwre 
Uln 8or 375 (Xeuw Blllbw) otthe UMhksirln8lu0, pa&r B 7%. r o a d@ in p m8 l r b ll4 8m: 

tbr Cloarenoo fund . . ..* 

hrtiolo 8, sa0t1on 6, or the conrtitutlan prohlblts the rppopriatlon of sonay ror l .la wn toEn than 

two yurae 

Our oeurtr ha+0 tmlfwe~ hold that tb Intantioa of t&a legiliattm k?(i to iJ lmi lo to be d*trxala~d 

It thornion follonr, in -42 to ur flnt 

quoatloa, t&t tE0 aona~ aralloblo for uod i-r roe1 yaw 

of t& rnru~ blanlum bo&nia8 %ptoabar 1, 1945, ir 

b~&i%?kxl 

The 1943 l pproprlWon 0r $7W0,000.00,~bth 

by aonrtltutloaal prohlbltion l odld net 

rrknd ror 80X@ than 8wo youmr 

s$nilt@ Bill 317 (ch. j78 of tb Aot8 of tho 49th 

Leglslntum) rpooiflu.dlg U.&e tlw appropriation to the 

l ua or $820,00o,W prr year for maoh oi thr fiaaal WW@ 

ollaing A@uast 31, 1946 ( an6 Aogust 31) 1947, to tha state 
David wunboh 

A8drtsBt
EX-10.6(b)



 EXHIBIT 10.6(b) 

April 7, 2014 
 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC 

522 Fifth Avenue, 13th Floor 
 New York, New York 10036 

 

	Re:	Ceres Managed Futures LLC: Amended Schedules 1 and 2 to the Alternative 


Investment Selling Agent Agreement 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 Pursuant to paragraph
13(c) of the Alternative Investment Selling Agent Agreement dated November 12, 2013, as amended from time to time (the “Agreement”), between, among others, Ceres Managed Futures LLC (“CMF”), the general partner of each of
the limited partnerships listed on Schedule 1 thereto (each, a “Partnership,” and together, the “Partnerships”), and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“MSSB”), CMF is hereby confirming that Schedules 1 and
2 to the Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with Schedules 1 and 2 attached hereto. 
 Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in the Agreement, by signing below MSSB hereby agrees to, acknowledges and accepts the amendment of the Agreement, effective as of April 1, 2014. 








  
 Page 2 

 

 If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding of our discussions, kindly sign and
return to us a counterpart hereof (by mail, facsimile or email) as soon as possible. 
 Sincerely, 

 

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Alper Daglioglu

		 	Alper Daglioglu
		 	President and Director
	
	 EACH PARTNERSHIP LISTED ON
 SCHEDULE
1 HERETO

		
	By:	 	 Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the
 general
partner of each Partnership

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Alper Daglioglu

		 	Alper Daglioglu
		 	President and Director


 Confirmed, accepted and agreed to: 
  

			
	MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jeremy Beal

	Name:	 	Jeremy Beal
	Title:	 	Executive Director









  
 Page 3 

 

 SCHEDULE 1 
  

					
	 PARTNERSHIP
	  	 STATE AND DATE OF

ORGANIZATION
	  	 EFFECTIVE DATE

	 Westport Futures Fund L.P.
	  	New York; March 21, 1997	  	October 1, 2013









  
 Page 4 

 

 SCHEDULE 2 
  

			
	 PARTNERSHIP
	  	 ONGOING SELLING AGENT FEE

	Westport Futures Fund L.P.	  	3.00% per year of the adjusted net assets of the Partnership (computed monthly by multiplying the adjusted net assets of the Partnership by 3.00% and dividing the result thereof by
12)1


	 	

  

	1 	Adjusted net assets are month-end Net Assets increased by the current month’s management fee, ongoing selling agent fee, incentive fee accrual and other expenses and any redemptions or distributions as of the end
of such month.
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1
Form 10-QSB
Fast Eddie Racing Stables, Inc.
File No. 0-19276

          CERTIFICATION 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 Fast Eddie Racing Stables,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 1999 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Glenn
A. Little,  Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 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.


Date: October 4, 2004                          By: /s/ Glenn A. Little
      ---------------                             ------------------------------
                                                                 Glenn A. Little
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Fast Eddie Racing  Stables,  Inc. and will be retained by Fast Eddie
Racing Stables,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
`[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1896 Referred in House (RFH)]







110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1896


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 4, 2007

      Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 11 Central Street in Hillsborough, New Hampshire, as the ``Officer 
                   Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. OFFICER JEREMY TODD CHARRON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 11 Central Street in Hillsborough, New Hampshire, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Officer Jeremy Todd Charron Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Officer 
Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office''.

            Passed the Senate August 3, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.`
EXHIBIT 21
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

       NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                      STATE OF INCORPORATION
       ------------------                                      ----------------------
<S>    <C>                                                         <C>
1.     Physicians Health Services of New Jersey, Inc.                New Jersey

2.     First Option Health Plan of Pennsylvania, Inc.               Pennsylvania

3.     First Option Health Plan of                                    Maryland
       Maryland, Inc.

4.     FOHP Agency, Inc.                                             New Jersey
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT  32     Certification Pursuant to Title 18, United  States
Code,  Section  1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section  906  Of  The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002


In  connection with the Annual Report of Karma Media, Inc. ("Karma
Media")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,  2003,  as
filed  with  the Securities and Exchange Commission  on  the  date
hereof  (the "Report"), I, Dominique Einhorn, President and  Chief
Executive  Officer  of  Karma Media, and I, Michael  C.  Markwell,
Principal  Financial Officer of Karma Media, certify, pursuant  to
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 Karma Media

Date: April 7, 2004

/s/ Dominique Einhorn
---------------------
Dominique Einhorn
President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: April 7, 2004

/s/ Michael C. Markwell
----------------------
Michael C. Markwell
Principal Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL 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 Nayna Networks, Inc. (formerly ResCon
      Technology Corp.), on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the period ended September 30, 2006,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), the undersigned, Naveen S. Bisht, Principal Executive Officer of
      the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 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, as amended; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




*Date:
                December 22, 2006*
            *By:*
            */S/
                Naveen S. Bisht**Naveen
                S. Bisht,*
              *Principal
                Executive Officer*
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification of CEO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002

 

Icertify that this periodic report containing the issuer’s financial statementsfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that informationcontained in this periodic report fairly presents in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

 
|   | By:    | /s/  John F. Coger                  |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   |   | John  F. Coger                      |
|   |   | President,  Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | April 15,  2010                |

 

----