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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the                     **Federal Register**                    . A copy of the agreement is available through the Commission's Web site (                    *www.fmc.gov*) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or                     *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov*.                

*Agreement No.:*                     011966-002.                

*Title:*                     West Coast USA-Mexico & Canada Vessel Sharing Agreement.                

*Parties:*                     Compania Sud Americana de Vapores S.A.; Hamburg Süd; and Compania Chilena de Navegacion Interoceania, S.A.                

*Filing Party:*                     Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036.                

*Synopsis:*                     The amendment would add Guatemala, Panama and the Caribbean Coast of Colombia to the geographic scope of the Agreement, increase the number of vessels used under the agreement, and revise the space allocations of the parties. Parties request expedited review.                

By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

Dated: February 2, 2010.

Karen V. Gregory,  

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-2566 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2114

PHENROY DAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MR. & MRS. LISA YEATTS; MR. & MRS. CANNY; MR. & MRS. ANGELA 

TAYLOR,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, 

District Judge. (4:12-cv-00127-RBS-FBS)

Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phenroy Day, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Phenroy Day appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil action as frivolous. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Day v. Yeatts, No. 

4:12-cv-00127-RBS-FBS (E.D. Va. Aug. 14, 2012). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25472]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax 
Assistance Issue Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer 
Income Tax Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, November 9, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Powers at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-
423-7977.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax 
Issue Committee will be held Tuesday, November 9, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. 
Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make 
oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to 
limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be 
made with Donna Powers. For more information, please contact Ms. Powers 
at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine 
Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or contact us at the Web 
site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: October 4, 2010.
Shawn F. Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2010-25472 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-1671

___________________________

Sokiry Kim Ieng

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

v.

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: September 21, 2012

Filed: September 26, 2012

[Unpublished]

____________

LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After Sokiry Ieng pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine,

the District Court1

 sentenced him to 240 months in prison and four years of supervised

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.
release; he did not appeal. Ieng later filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming that

his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a direct appeal. Following

an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied relief. Crediting plea counsel’s

testimony that he had convinced Ieng that the only realistic means of reducing his

sentence was through a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, the

court found that Ieng voluntarily and intentionally chose not to appeal. The court thus

concluded that Ieng’s counsel was not ineffective but granted Ieng a certificate of

appealability on the issue.

Upon careful review, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. See Covey

v. United States, 377 F.3d 903, 906 (8th Cir. 2004) (“We review the ineffective

assistance issue de novo, but findings of underlying predicate facts are reviewed for

clear error.”); see also Yodprasit v. United States, 294 F.3d 966, 969 (8th Cir. 2002)

(explaining that a district court need not believe a prisoner’s bare assertion that he

asked counsel to file an appeal if it finds that evidence to the contrary is more

credible); Barger v. United States, 204 F.3d 1180, 1181 (8th Cir. 2000) (noting that

an appellate court “accord[s] deference to the district court’s credibility

determinations” when reviewing a claim that counsel failed to file an appeal). We

also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

-2-
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Matthew BELL.

No. 2010-KK-2630.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2010.

In re Bell, Matthew; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 500-135; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1634.

Stay denied; writ denied.
#### Renita GARRISON v. The STATE of Louisiana through the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

No. 2011-C-0791.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

In re Garrison, Renita; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 67,414; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1570.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2008 (the Report), which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such quarter and the results
of operations of the Registrant for such quarter.
  /s/ Deirdre Y. GillespieDeirdre Y. Gillespie, M.D.President and Chief Executive Officer /s/ Niv E. CaviarNiv E. CaviarExecutive Vice President, Chief Business and
Financial Officer Note:
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to La
Jolla Pharmaceutical Company and will be retained by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                           5
<CIK>                               0000921381
<NAME>                              Jotan, Inc
<MULTIPLIER>                        1
<CURRENCY>                          U. S. Dollars
       
<S>                                 <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                     1
<CASH>                              0
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                       10,464,865
<ALLOWANCES>                        723,347
<INVENTORY>                         7,636,301
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    19,116,805
<PP&E>                              5,798,825
<DEPRECIATION>                      1,249,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      27,761,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               20,157,177
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               12,932,747
<PREFERRED>                         14,357
<COMMON>                            214,140
<OTHER-SE>                          (38,937,294)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        27,761,874
<SALES>                             33,246,946
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    33,246,946
<CGS>                               24,017,172
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       24,017,172
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    10,182,863
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  (2,201,215)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (3,154,304)
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (3,154,304)
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                        (3,154,304)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.31)
        


</TABLE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M ARK EDD I E M c KENZI E, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. J A M E S A . Y A T E S , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 17448 D. C. No . 1 : 0 6 - c v - 0 0 4 5 0 - ALA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A r thurL . A l a r c ón, C i r c ui tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r1, 2011 S an F ra nci sc o, C al i forni a B efo re: W A L L A C E , B E R Z O N an d B Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C alifo rn ia state p riso n erM cK en zie a p p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f i r m. 

# FI LED OC T 24 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 17448 2 M cK enzi e c on t ends thathi s c on st i tut i on al ri gh tt o d ue process w as vi ol at ed w he n, dur i ng voi rdi r e , the j udge s t a t e d tha the w oul d ha ve the di s c r e t i on t o gr a nt pr oba t i on a nd the pr os e c ut ors t a t e d tha tthe c our tc oul d r e duc e the of f e ns e t o a m i s de m e a nor . B e c a us e M c K e nz i e doe s nots how tha tthe C a l i f orni a C our tof A pp ea l ’ s dec i si on re

j ec t i ng M cK enzi e’ s c on t ent i on s w as contra ry t o o r a n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of S up re m e C ou rtprec edent , the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr in d e n y in g th e p e titio n . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1). F urther, M cK enzi e’ s tri al w as no t“ so fund am ent al l y unfai r” thati tdeni ed M cK enzi e due process un der D o n n e lly v. D eCh risto

f o ro , 4 1 6 U .S . 6 3 7 , 6 4 5 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . A F F I R M E D .
543 A.2d 616

#### Jack R. Harman and Catherine R. Harman, Appellants *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Appellee.

*327Submitted on briefs February 25, 1988,

to Judges Craig, McGiNLEYand Smith, sitting as a panel of three.

*Arthur K. Dils,*for appellants.

*Felix Thau,*Deputy Chief Counsel, for appellee.

June 27, 1988:

Opinion by

Judge Smith,

Jack R. Harman and Catherine R. Harman (Appellants) appeal from a. decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County which affirmed a suspension of 25 days imposed against Appellants’ establishment, The Railroad House, located in Middletown, Pennsylvania, by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board). Appellants were cited for providing lewd, immoral and improper entertainment in violation of Section 493 (10) of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. §4-493(10).1

*328Our scope of review in cases such' as this one is to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial courts findings or whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. *In Re: 23rd St:,'Inc.,'*102 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 224, 517 A.2d 581 (1986).

The question presented in this appeal is one of first impression in this Court. The issue before the Court is whether simulated sex via the medium of television constitutes entertainment of a lewd, immoral and improper nature which violates Section 493 of the Liquor Code. The well-written opinion of Judge John C. Dowling of the Court of Common' Pleas of Dauphin County properly addresses the issue raised in this appeal.2

Accordingly, we affirm the trial coUrt on the basis of the opinion issued by Judge John C. Dowling, Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, in the matter of *Harman v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board,*Pa. D. & C. 3d , 107 Dauph. 8 (1986).

Order

And Now, this 27th day of June, 1988, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Dáuphin Coünty, dated April 30, 1986, is hereby affirmed.

1

 Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, Article IV, Section 493, which provides, *inter alia:*“It shall be unlawful ... for any licensee, under any circumstances, to permit in any licensed premises, any lewd, immoral or improper entertainment. . . .”

2

 Appellants were also cited for issuing bad checks. However, this citation is not at issue in the present appeal.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25601]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, November 19, 2010, 8 a.m. to 
November 19, 2010, 6 p.m., Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 
4300 Military Road, NW., Washington, DC, 20015 which was published in 
the Federal Register on September 30, 2010, 75 FR 60465-60466.
    The meeting will be held at the Embassy Suites Washington DC, 1250 
22nd Street, NW., Washington, DC 20030. The meeting date and time 
remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: October 5, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-25601 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7162** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JEANNIE LARGENT COSBY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:07

- cr - 00033

- MR

- 3 )

Submitted : September 4, 2013 Decided: September 11, 2013

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Jeannie Largent Cosby , Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik , Amy Elizabeth Ray , Assistant United States Attorneys, Corey F. Ellis , Jill Westmoreland Rose , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Asheville , North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jeannie Largent Cosby appeals the district court’s orders denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motions for reduction of sentence and denying her subsequent motion for reconsideration. We affirm. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision on wheth er to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and review de novo a court’s conclusion on the scope of its legal authority un der that provision. United States v. Munn , 595 F.3d 183 , 186 (4th Cir. 2010). Under § 3582(c)(2), a distri ct court may modify a defendant’ s term of imprisonment when the defendant is “ sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that h as subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission

. ” Th is provision , however, provides Cosby no relief because her sentence was based on a statutory minimum sentence and not on a Guidelines range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Comm ission. See United States v. Hood , 556 F.3d 226 , 235 (4th Cir. 2009) (“ [I]n reduci ng a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and [ U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ]
§ 5K1.1, the sentencing court does not apply a Guidelines sentencing range.”); see also Unite d States v. Johnson , 564 F.3d 419 , 423 (6th Cir. 2009) ( stating that the starting point f or a downward departure under § 3553(e) is the statutory minimum3 sentence). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Cosby’s § 3582(c)(2) motions.
We further conclude that the district court lacked the authority to revi sit its order denying § 3582(c)(2) relief to Cosby

. United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d 233 , 235

– 36 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we also affirm the district court’s order denying Cos by ’s motion for reconsideration.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted from the Consolidated
Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1999 and the Consolidated Statement of
Operations for the six month period ended June 30, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,769
<SECURITIES>                                    30,358
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,251
<PP&E>                                           8,245
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,229)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,926
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       109,410
<OTHER-SE>                                    (79,659)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,798
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,033
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 478
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,418)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,418)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,418)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.90)


</TABLE>