alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60495-60496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24541]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property 
at Monroe Regional Airport, Monroe, LA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the 
release of land at Monroe Regional Airport under the provisions of 
Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to 
the FAA at the following address:

Mr. Lacey D. Spriggs, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, LA/NM

[[Page 60496]]

Airports Development Office, ASW-640, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort 
Worth, Texas 76137-0640.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Mayor James E. Mayo at the following address:

Office of the Mayor, P.O. Box 123, Monroe, LA 71210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lacey D. Spriggs, Manager, Federal 
Aviation Administration, LA/NM Airports Development Office, ASW-640, 
2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137-0640.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this 
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the 
request to release property at the Monroe Regional Airport.
    On September 20, 2010, the FAA determined that the request to 
release property at Monroe Regional Airport submitted by the City of 
Monroe met the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations, Part 155. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in 
part, no later than November 15, 2010.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The City of Monroe, Louisiana requests the release of 1.643 acres 
of airport property. The release of property will allow for 
construction of a new facility for office space and warehouse for JAF 
Properties, LP to proceed. The sale is estimated to provide $45,200.00 
whereas the proceeds will be used to continue the Bermuda Release 
Program and used to upgrade and expand the security camera system to 
include more of the Security Passenger Holding area as well as cameras 
for airfield surveillance.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office 
listed above under ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.''
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, 
notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the 
Monroe Regional Airport, Monroe, Louisiana.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on September 21, 2010.
Joseph G. Washington,
Acting Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-24541 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 60374 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Earnest Romond Breland,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:19

- CR

- 60

- 1

Before **Davis, Jones, and Elrod,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Earnest Romond Breland appeals the 120

- month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. He argues that the district court erred in applying a two

- level

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent excep t under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 18, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60374 Document: 00516208424 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2022No. 21

- 60374

2 enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) for posses sing a stolen firearm. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, for summary affirmance based on the appeal waiver in Breland’s written plea agreement. Breland has not responded to the motion or otherwise addressed the validity of the waiver provision. Even if he had briefed the issue, any argument that the waiver is invalid or unenforceable under the circumstances would be without merit, as Breland was specifically admonished about his right to appeal and that he was giving up that r ight as part of his plea, and the waiver broadly precludes any challenge to Breland’s sentence. See United States v. Bond , 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is **GRANTED**

. Its alternative motion for summary affirmance is **DENIED**

. The appeal is **DISMISSED**

. Counsel for Breland is **CAUTIONED** that pursuing an appeal contrary to a valid waiver and without responding to the Government’s invocation of the waiver is a needless waste of judicial resources that could result in sanctions. See United States v. Gaitan , 171 F.3d 222, 223

- 24 (5th Cir. 1999). Case: 21-60374 Document: 00516208424 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2022
#### In the Matter of Demitris Lennon, Respondent, v Roosevelt Union Free School District et al., Appellants.

[775 NYS2d 537]

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e for leave to file a late notice of claim, Roosevelt Union Free School District and Ulysses Byas Elementary School appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated May 8, 2003, which granted the claimant’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim.

*714Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The infant claimant alleges that he was injured in December 2001 when he fell on the stairs at his elementary school. He further alleges that he fell because he was directed by a teacher to carry a crate of materials which was too heavy for him. Approximately 11 months later, although no action had been commenced, the claimant moved for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e. The Supreme Court denied the motion without prejudice to renew upon proper supporting papers. Thereafter the Supreme Court granted the claimant’s second motion for leave to file a late notice of claim despite the failure to commence a special proceeding in the absence of a pending action.

It is well settled that “[i]n the absence of a pending action, an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim must be brought as a special proceeding” *(Matter of Sullivan v Lindenhurst Union Free School Dist.,*178 AD2d 603, 604 [1991]; *see Cavanagh v Monticello Cent. School Dist.,*241 AD2d 654 [1997]; *Rogers v New York City Hous. Auth.,*169 AD2d 763 [1991]). Nevertheless, under the circumstances of this case, denial of the claimant’s second motion on this ground would have been unwarranted *(see Cavanagh v Monticello Cent. School Dist., supra).*

However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the claimant’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim. The claimant’s mother did not offer a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking leave to file a late notice after she became aware of the requirement to do so *(see Matter of Smith v Otselic Val. Cent. School Dist.,*302 AD2d 665 [2003]; *see also Saafir v Metro-N. Commuter R.R. Co.,*260 AD2d 462 [1999]). Nor was there any showing of a nexus between the claimant’s infancy and the delay *(see Perre v Town of Poughkeepsie,*300 AD2d 379 [2002]).

Moreover, there was no evidence that the appellants acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the proposed claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter “so as to obviate prejudice to [them]” *(Matter of Ryder v Garden City School Dist.,*277 AD2d 388 [2000]; *see Matter of Dunlea v Mahopac Cent. School Dist.,*232 AD2d 558 [1996]).

Accordingly, as the claimant failed to meet any of the criteria necessary for the granting of leave to file a late notice of claim, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the motion. Santucci, J.E, Florio, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1722 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1722

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 601 Banyan Trail in Boca Raton, Florida, as the ``Leonard W. Herman 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LEONARD W. HERMAN POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 601 Banyan Trail in Boca Raton, Florida, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Leonard W. Herman 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 ``Leonard W. 
Herman Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 22, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1722

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 601 Banyan Trail in Boca Raton, Florida, as the ``Leonard W. Herman 
                             Post Office''.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1574 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1574

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to preserve State authority 
             to ensure the security of chemical facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 19, 2007

   Mr. Smith of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to preserve State authority 
             to ensure the security of chemical facilities.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Safe Facilities Act''.

SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF STATE AUTHORITY TO ENSURE SECURITY OF CHEMICAL 
              FACILITIES.

    (a) In General.--Title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
U.S.C. 121 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

                ``Subtitle E--Chemical Facility Security

``SEC. 241. PRESERVATION OF STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.

    ``Nothing in Federal law or regulation, and no Federal agency 
action, preempts any State law or regulation relating to security of 
chemical facilities that is more stringent than such Federal law, 
regulation, or agency action, including any such State law or 
regulation that takes effect after the date of the enactment of the 
Safe Facilities Act.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 1(b) of 
such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items relating to title 
II the following:

                ``Subtitle E--Chemical Facility Security

``Sec. 241. Preservation of State laws and regulations.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60138-60139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24382]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-73,579]


Consolidated Glass and Mirror Corporation, a Subsidiary of 
Guardian Industries Corporation, Galax, VA; Notice of Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated September 2, 2010, petitioners requested 
administrative reconsideration of the

[[Page 60139]]

negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former 
workers of Consolidated Glass and Mirror Corporation, a Subsidiary of 
Guardian Industries Corporation, Galax, Virginia (subject firm). The 
determination was issued on August 5, 2010. The Department's Notice of 
Determination was published in the Federal Register on August 23, 2010 
(75 FR 51849). Workers are engaged in employment related to the 
production of laminated glass products.
    The negative determination was based on the findings that the 
subject firm did not, during the period under investigation, shift to a 
foreign country production of articles like or directly competitive 
with those produced by the workers or acquire these articles from a 
foreign country; that the workers' separation, or threat of separation, 
was not related to any increase in imports of like or directly 
competitive articles; and that the workers did not produce an article 
that was directly used in the production of an article or the supply of 
service by a firm that employed a worker group that is eligible to 
apply for TAA based on the aforementioned article or service.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners provided 
additional information pertaining to subject firm customers that employ 
workers who are eligible to apply for TAA.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
petitioning workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act 
of 1974, as amended.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of September 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-24382 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### Jorge A. NUNEZ, Petitioner, v. Edwin G. BUSS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D11-2451.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 10, 2011.

Jorge A. Nunez, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. *See Powell v. Florida Dep’t of Corr.,*727 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

DAVIS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
#### SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, v. Carol HOROWITZ, a minor, by her sister, and next friend, Joan Hoffman, Appellee.

No. 18170.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

May 6, 1960.

Earl D. Waldin, Jr., Smathers, Thompson & Dyer, Miami, Fla., for appellant Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co.

Wm. S. Frates, Sam Daniels, Nichols, Gaither, Green, Frates & Beckham, Miami, Fla., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, CAMERON and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The mother of the appellee was killed when an automobile driven by her was struck by a train of the appellant at a grade crossing. Judgment was entered for the appellee and the railroad has appealed. It is asserted that erroneous charges were given to the jury. No objections to the charges were made and it is not contended that the appellant was deprived of an opportunity for making them. No exception being preserved the instructions are not subject to review. Rule 51, Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A.; Sims v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 5 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 37; Cain v. Illinois Central R. Co., 5 Cir., 1959, 266 F.2d 942; De Fonce Const. Co. v. City of Miami, 5 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 425, certiorari denied 358 U.S. 875, 79 S.Ct. 115, 3 L.Ed.2d 105; Ford v. United Gas Corporation, 5 Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 817, certiorari denied 358 U.S. 824, 79 S.Ct. 40, 3 L.Ed.2d 64. The appellant urges that the evidence does not sustain the verdict and judgment. No motion was made for a directed verdict. Where no request has been made for a directed verdict the sufficiency of the evidence on issues submitted to the jury cannot be challenged on appeal. Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 5 Cir., 1959, 264 F.2d 751. No manifest injustice calling for an invocation of the plain error rule is shown. Haugh v. Curlee, 5 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 130. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 10-K/A of Sevion Therapeutics, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, James Schmidt, Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

(1)       The
Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Sevion Therapeutics, Inc.



|Dated: October 28, 2016 |  | /s/ James Schmidt*                          
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|                        |  | James Schmidt                               
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                        |  | (principal financial and accounting officer)



* A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5                       
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,744
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,643
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        544
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,910
<PP&E>                                           1,261
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,384
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            90
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,212
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,194
<CGS>                                           37,687
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,486
<INCOME-TAX>                                       571
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                915
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       915
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                              41
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,036
<ALLOWANCES>                                       156
<INVENTORY>                                     18,932
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,495
<PP&E>                                           9,550
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,024
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,587
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,969
<CGS>                                           17,541
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,234
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 370
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,209
<INCOME-TAX>                                       474
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                735
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       735
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>