alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 56146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22921]


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

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


Oral Argument

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the scheduling of oral argument in 
the matters of Rhonda K. Conyers v. Department of Defense, MSPB Docket 
No. CH-0752-09-0925-I-1, and Devon H. Northover v. Department of 
Defense, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-10-0184-I-1.

Date and Time: Tuesday, September 21, 2010, at 10 a.m.

Place: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Room 
201, 717 Madison Place, NW., Washington, DC.

Status: Open.

FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Shannon, Merit Systems 
Protection Board, Office of the Clerk of the Board, 1615 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20419; (202) 653-7200; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#325f414250725f4142501c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dbb6a8abb99bb6a8abb9f5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 5 CFR 1201.117(a)(2), the Merit 
Systems Protection Board (``MSPB'' or ``Board'') will hear oral 
argument in the matters of Rhonda K. Conyers v. Department of Defense, 
MSPB Docket No. CH-0752-09-0925-I-1, and Devon Northover v. Department 
of Defense, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-10-0184-I-1. Conyers and Northover 
raise the question of whether, pursuant to 5 CFR part 732, the rule in 
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530-31 (1988), limiting 
the scope of MSPB review of an adverse action based on the revocation 
of a security clearance, also applies to an adverse action involving an 
employee in a ``non-critical sensitive'' position due to the employee 
having been denied continued eligibility for employment in a sensitive 
position. The Board requested and received an advisory brief from the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in this matter, see 5 U.S.C. 
1204(e)(1)(A), and the Board invited amicus curiae to submit briefs. 
See 75 FR 6728, Feb. 10, 2010. The parties, OPM, and the amici curiae 
will be allotted time at the hearing to present oral argument in this 
matter. The briefs submitted by the parties, OPM, and the amici curiae 
are available for viewing on the MSPB's Web site at http://www.mspb.gov. A recording of the oral argument will also be made 
available on the MSPB's Web site. The public is welcome to attend this 
hearing for the sole purpose of observation. Any person attending this 
oral argument who requires special accessibility features, such as sign 
language interpretation, must inform MSPB of those needs in advance.

William D. Spencer,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-22921 Filed 9-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10649

Conference Calendar

 

TOMMY L. PARKER, Rabbi,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RON McLAURIN; JESSE MENDEZ, 

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:02-CV-115-C

- - - - - - - - - -

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Tommy L. Parker, a Texas resident, appeals from the district

court’s order granting the defendants’ FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)

motion to dismiss his complaint, purportedly filed pursuant to

the civil rights provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to

state a claim on which relief may be granted.

 Parker sought damages from the defendants, McLaurin and

Mendez, who are attorneys in private practice, for violations of

his due process rights. Parker made the following allegations:

After he hired McLaurin to represent him in a state-law matter,

McLaurin effectively abandoned him. Parker then sued McLaurin,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-10649

-2-

who hired Mendez as his own attorney. During this second

proceeding, McLaurin perjured himself, and both McLaurin and

Mendez engaged in improper ex parte communications with the trial

judge. 

The district court granted the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6)

motion on the ground that Parker’s allegations failed to

establish that either defendant had acted under “color of state

law.” See Morris v. Dearborne, 181 F.3d 657, 666 n.6 (5th Cir.

1999). In his pro se appellate brief, Parker has failed to

challenge the legal basis upon which the district court dismissed

his complaint. Failure to identify an error in the district

court’s analysis is the same as if Parker had not appealed

the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,

813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, Parker’s appeal

is without arguable merit, Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983), and we DISMISS the appeal as frivolous. 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. 

Parker’s motion to amend his reply brief is DENIED as

unnecessary.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO AMEND DENIED.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 74 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6195-S6196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

         A CLEAR VIOLATION OF BASIC PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN DECENCY

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on Wednesday, the Capital of Croatia, was 
subjected to a vicious attack by militant Serb separatists. This was 
the second day in a row that Zagreb was attacked by rockets armed with 
cluster bombs. The attack occurred at noon, when civilians were out 
having lunch. The principal targets were the children's hospital and 
the national theater where a ballet company was rehearsing. Several 
people were killed and dozens were wounded, bringing the total number 
of casualties to about 200 people.
  There are those who say that the Croatian Government provoked the 
attack, by conducting a military operation that returned a 200-square-
mile area back to Croatian control. That argument misses the point. 
Nothing, I repeat, nothing, justifies an attack on innocent civilians--
on children in this case. The U.S. Ambassador was right when he 
condemned these attacks at a clear violation of basic principles of 
human decency.
  I am aware that it is U.N. practice to shift the blame and muddy the 
waters in their pursuit of neutrality between aggressors and victims. 
But, to do so--whether in this case, or in the case of attacks on 
civilians in Bosnia--is reprehensible.
  Furthermore, if the United Nations were doing its job in Croatia--if 
the United Nations had implemented its mandate to demilitarize the 
sectors of Croatia under their control thereby clearing the way for 
reintegration of [[Page S6196]] these occupied territories--the 
Croatian Government may not have taken the action it did on Monday. Let 
us not forget, the occupied areas are part of the territory of Croatia. 
So while the international community should urge the Croatian 
Government and its forces to fully respect the human and civil rights 
of the population in the areas they have retaken, it should not urge 
Croatia to give up control of reclaimed territory.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 32



Certification of Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Pemco Aviation Group,
Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(a) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 13, 2005 |  | /s/ Ronald A. Aramini  
|                    |  | Ronald A. Aramini      
|                    |  | President and          
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer



---

Certification of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Pemco Aviation Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(a) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 13, 2005 |  | /s/ John R. Lee        
|                    |  | John R. Lee            
|                    |  | Sr. Vice President and 
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certifications are being
furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



Signed originals of these written statements required by Section 906 have been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 18 27

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v. Dus ti n Wayne Ro ge rs ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Apri l 1 2, 2 01 7 Fi le d: Apri l 1 7, 2 01 7 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, ARNOLD, andBENTON, Circu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Dus ti n W ayne Ro ge rs pl ed gu il ty pl ea to ch il d- po rn og rap hy ch a r ge s. On ap pe al , he ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce th at th e di st ric t co urt im po se d. Ro ge rs ’s co un se l 1

Th e Hon or ab le St ep ha ni e M. Ro se , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r t h e 1 So ut he rn Dis tri ctof I owa
.m ov es to wit hd raw, an d in a br ie f su bm it te d un de r Ander s v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , he arg ue s th at th e se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y un r e a so na bl e. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.
The di st ric t co ur t im

po se d a se nt en ce be lo w the ap pl ic ab le ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge a f t e r d i s c us si ng , in so m e de ta il , th e na tu re an d se rio us ne ss of th e of fen se s, Ro ge rs ’s pe rs on al ch arac te ris ti cs , di ffi cu lt ch il dh oo d, an d ad m ira bl e m il ita ry se rv ic e, an d co ns id ered ot he r ap pr op ria te se nt en ci ng fact or s un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Thi s co ur t fin ds th at th e se nt en ce was no t su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Da v i d , 6 82 F.3 d 10 74 , 10 77 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (d is cu ss in g ab us e of di sc ret io n) ; Uni te d St at es v. Moo re , 58 1 F.3 d 68 1, 68 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (p er cu ria m ) (“ [W] he re a di st ric t co ur t ha s se nt en ced a de fen d a n t b el ow th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge , it is
ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e th at th e co ur t ab us e d i t s di sc ret io n in no t va ry in g do wnwar d st il l.”)

. An in de pe nd en t rev ie w of th e reco rd rev e a l s no no nf riv ol ou s is su es fo r ap pe al

. Se e Pen so n v . Ohi o , 48 8 U.S. 7 5 (1 98 8)

.
The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed , and co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is gra nt ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF STARR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on September 16, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Leobardo Arambula, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-14-00669-CR and Tr. Ct. No. CR-13-288

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s

judgment is REVERSED and we RENDER a judgment of acquittal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on November 16, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
Exhibit 13.1

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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Theratechnologies Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Luc Tanguay, President and Chief 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 results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                               |  |  |  |  |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | 
|Date: February 27, 2014                                        |  |  |  |  |  | 
|                                                               |  | 
|/s/ Luc Tanguay                                                |  |  |  | 
|Name: Luc Tanguay Title: President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |
#### Frank M. BURKE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. William MILLER, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 80-1558

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Unit A

Jan. 23, 1981.

Thompson & Knight, James Yuill Robb, III, Buford P. Berry, Emily A. Parker, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Richard Farber, Daniel F. Ross, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Kenneth J. Mighell, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for defendantsappellees.

Before GEE, RUBIN and RANDALL, Circuit Judges.

ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:

The reasons the district court lacks jurisdiction are fully set forth in its lucid opinion. *Burke v. Blumenthal,*504 F.Supp. 35 (N.D.Tex.1980). We affirm the dismissal of this case for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellants argue that it is clear the government could not ultimately prevail on the merits under any circumstances. For the reasons set forth in the government’s brief, the likelihood of government success is neither foreclosed nor negligible. It is, indeed, substantial.

The ability to fill more than 36 pages with ho more than legal spun sugar does not make an argument substantial. The appeal is frivolous, and we award double costs. Rule 38 F.R.A.P. Because this appears to be adequate sanction, we refrain from awarding damages.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2542 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2542

   To clarify the effect of State statutes of repose on the required 
  commencement date for actions under the Comprehensive Environmental 
           Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 26, 2014

  Mrs. Hagan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To clarify the effect of State statutes of repose on the required 
  commencement date for actions under the Comprehensive Environmental 
           Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

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

SECTION 1. ACTIONS UNDER STATE LAW FOR DAMAGES FROM EXPOSURE TO 
              HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES.

    Section 309 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9658) is amended--
            (1) in the subsection heading of subsection (a), by 
        inserting ``and Repose'' after ``Statutes of Limitations''; and
            (2) by inserting ``or repose'' after ``limitations'' each 
        of the other places it appears.
                                 <all>
```
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Air Force Priorities, 2021 Budget, and Air Force Song UpdatePublished March 13, 2020
                        
                        By Senior Airman Koby Saunders
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)  --**
                Today’s look Around the Air Force features the Secretary of the Air Force’s top four priorities for the force, an update on the Air Force budget, and the Air Force song changes to be more inclusive. (Hosted by Senior Airman Koby Saunders)



For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
-Updating our alma mater to celebrate all of usFeatured Video 



AFTV 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



Air Force 



AF 



USAF 



SecAF 



modernize 



build 



grow 



strengthen 



Secretary of the Air Force 



Barbara Barrett
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2735 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2735

      To provide for an extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2014

 Mr. Pryor (for himself and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To provide for an extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act 
(47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by striking ``November 1, 2014'' and 
inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
    (b) Grandfathering of States That Tax Internet Access.--Section 
1104(a)(2)(A) of such Act is amended by striking ``November 1, 2014'' 
and inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
                                 <all>
```
News United States Air Force
 DAWN-ED advanced degree program now accepting applications for 2022 academic yearPublished March 31, 2021
                        
                        By Air Education and Training Command
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Active duty Department of the Air Force officers interested in the Developing the Airmen We Need-Education advanced degree program have until June 25 to apply for the 2022 academic year.
DAWN-ED is a DAF-funded degree program that provides up to 15 eligible Airmen and Guardians an opportunity to pursue a master’s degree or doctorate from a university of choice.
Funded by the Air Force Education Requirements Board, DAWN-ED was established to help meet the Department’s future technological and emerging needs as outlined in the**2018 National Defense Strategy**.DAF officers in the following developmental categories are eligible to apply: Air Operations and Special Warfare - Space Operations; Nuclear and Missile Operations - Information Warfare; Combat Support and Force Modernization. In addition, Air Force ROTC and**U.S. Air Force Academy** cadets may apply.Additionally, eligible officers should have no more than 10 years of commissioned service; no less than two years time on station; the ability to meet application and testing requirements for the school in which they apply; and will incur a service commitment following completion of the program.
Officers selected for this program must seek their advanced degree in one of the following areas: Computer Science (Advanced/Quantum Computing, Artificial Intelligence, or Machine Learning); Engineering (Autonomous Systems, Hypersonics, Optics, Robotics, Sensors, or Stealth); Physics (Advanced Materials or Directed Energy); and Other (Biotechnology, Ethics in Technology, Strategic Economics, or Strategic Foresight).
More detailed information about the criteria and application process is available on the myPers**website**. DAWN-ED program managers will host four telephone conference calls to talk with and answer questions from officers and cadets considering this opportunity. Additional information for these calls is contained in the program announcements at the websites listed below:DAWN-ED **Master’s Announcement**
DAWN-ED **Ph.D Announcement**For more information, contact the DAWN-ED program managers at**AETC.DAWN.Workflow@us.af.mil**.AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Air Education and Training Command 



AETC 



DAWN-ED 



advanced degree program 



officers 



Air Force Education Requirements Board 



U.S. Air Force Academy 



force development 



stem