alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

Office of the Clerk of the Board

1615 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20419-0002

Phone: 202-653-7200; Fax: 202-653-7130; E-Mail: mspb@mspb.gov

May 5, 2022

NOTICE TO PARTIES 

WITH A PENDING PETITION FOR REVIEW OR CASE BEFORE THE FULL BOARD

The Board’s regulation at 5 C.F.R. § 1201.26 requires the parties to notify the appropriate Board 

office and other parties, in writing, of any changes in the names or addresses on the service list.

For parties who are registered e-filers, the Board will distribute any issuances – including the 

Board decision – to the party’s email address of record. Parties who receive service by U.S. 

mail will receive any issuances – including the Board decision – to the mailing address of 

record. 

Given the passage of time since January 7, 2017, when the Board last had a quorum to issue 

decisions, the Board is providing this courtesy notice via its website to remind parties of their 

responsibility for updating their contact information in writing to the Board. This can be 

accomplished by:

• Filing a pleading through e-Appeal Online or mailing or faxing a pleading with the 

updated contact information only to the address below. Do not include additional 

argument or materials with your pleading to update your contact information. 

• If a party was previously receiving service by U.S. mail and would like to register as an 

e-filer, they can create an account at https://e-appeal.mspb.gov/ and select the option 

“e-Filing Status” to register as an e-filer. 

If a party is unsure whether their contact information is up to date, they should review the most 

recent certificate of service from a Board issuance (for example, the certificate of service 

included at the end of a petition for review acknowledgment notice), or they may call or email 

the Office of the Clerk of the Board to confirm this information. 

All changes to mailing address, phone number, or email address must be made in writing 

through a pleading. The Board will not take action to update contact information via a phone 

call or from an email. 

Office of the Clerk of the Board

1615 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20419-0002

Phone: 202-653-7200 Fax: 202-653-7130

E-Mail: mspb@mspb.gov
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DANIEL SOLES.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
      Here's how you know **The .gov means it’s official.**
            
            Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
 **The site is secure.**
            
            The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Menu


close HomeAbout
    About the MSPB	
			Contacts & Locations
			Equal Employment Opportunity
			Information Quality Standards
			No FEAR Act
			Open.Gov
			Organization
			Plans, Budget & Performance
			Privacy Program
           Merit System Principles
	Prohibited Personnel Practices
	 Site Index and SearchAppeals
    Appeal Process
						Appellant Q&A
    Electronic Filing
    Forms
    Hearing Sites
    Policy & Resources
    Regulations
    Whistleblower Q&A 
	Electronic Filing  
	Mediation Appeals ProgramDecisions
    Case Reports
Nonprecedential Decisions
		Precedential DecisionsStudies & Publications
       About & Contact Studies
		Latest Publications
		Newsletters
		Reports
          Research Briefs
		Search StudiesSurveys of Federal Employees Public & Information Services
    Accessibility
		   Contracting & Procurement
			  Federal Register Notices
		      FOIA Program
				 e-FOIA Reading Room
        Submit a FOIA Request
           FOIA Reports 
			Information Collections
			Jobs & Internships
	Press Releases & News
	Privacy Program
				Regulations
			    Technical Support Search small
Search




Home
	  Back to Furlough Appeals
    
    Search & Site IndexDocuments available in Adobe PDF format. Download an Adobe Reader Furlough Appeals
 Defense Commissary Agency Administrative Record for FY 2013 Furlough Appeals
   Complete Defense Commissary Agency Administrative Record for FY 2013 Furlough Appeals  –  3.4 MB       
    **Table of Contents**Tab
        Description
        Page1.
        Secretary of Defense Memorandum of May 14, 2013
          Subject: Furlough
        82.
        Declaration of Robert F.Hale
        183.
        Declaration of Michael J. Dowling
        294.
        Defense Commissary Agency Memorandum of May 28 2013
          Subject: Notice of Proposed Furlough
        315.
        Defense Commissary Agency Memorandum of June 27, 2013
          Subject: Notice of Decision to Furlough
        336.
        Declaration of Lauren P. Bands, Jr.
        36


Return to top


About MSPB
			  Accessibility
           Budget and Performance
          FOIA
          Info Quality Standards
          No FEAR Act
    
          Office of the Inspector General
          Privacy Program   
           Technical Support       USA.gov
		OSC.gov
				 Vote.gov


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Agency Contact Center (202) 653-7200
          mspb@mspb.gov
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 99.2

BANKATLANTIC BANCORP, INC.


                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 BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James A. White, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.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.



By: /s/ James A. White
   ---------------------------------
Name: James A. White
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:



The foregoing certificate is provided solely for purposes of complying with
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and for no other purpose
whatsoever. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in any
of the Company's previous filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate the
Company's future filings, including this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, in whole
or in part, this Certificate shall not be incorporated by reference into any
such filings.
Dear Mr. Spencer:

This is in response to the request for public comments contained in Federal 

Register Notice Volume 78, Number 217, dated November 8, 2013, regarding 

revising regulations governing how jurisdiction is established over Merit 

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) appeals.

Members of the Office of the Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Personnel 

Law and Administrative Litigation in the Department of Energy’s Office of the 

Assistant General Counsel for General Law have reviewed the proposed Options. 

We recommend that the Board adopt Option C, insofar as it eliminates the 

requirement to hold an evidentiary hearing on the merits even when there is no 

genuine issue of material fact to be resolved. We do not recommend the 

adoption of Option A. 

Thank you for providing the opportunity to weigh-in on this important topic.

 

Reesha Trznadel

Office of the Assistant General Counsel for General Law

United States Department of Energy
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6249

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SYLVESTER R. BOOKER, a/k/a Ves,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00095-REP-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2023 Decided: November 22, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sylvester R. Booker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6249 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Sylvester R. Booker appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ 

of error coram nobis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Booker, No. 

3:99-cr-00095-REP-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 7, 2023). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6249 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICHARD GODLESKY.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         542,414
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,688
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               563,102
<PP&E>                                      22,152,812
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,076,561)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,032,604
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,421
<BONDS>                                      8,194,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,710,409
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,032,604
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               625,040
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   93,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             179,276
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                352,072
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            352,072
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   352,072
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

REFUGIO ARTURO SIAS,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-7070

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-2053, Judge Lawrence B. 

Hagel.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

This court dismissed the above-captioned appeal on 

July 21, 2014, for failure to file the brief required by 

Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by 

the rules. Refugio Arturo Sias moves to reopen this 

appeal, and he has attached his informal brief. Mr. Sias’s 

brief, however, does not comply with the rules of this 

court.

Case: 14-7070 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 08/15/2014
2 SIAS v. MCDONALD

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) If Mr. Sias submits his informal brief on Form 13 

within 30 days of the date of filing of this order, the 

mandate will be recalled, this court’s July 21, 2014, 

dismissal order will be vacated, and this appeal will be reopened. 

(2) The clerk’s office is directed to send Form 13 and 

the Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants to Mr. 

Sias. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court

s30

Case: 14-7070 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 08/15/2014
#### Joshua Eric SWINDELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gail LEWIS, Warden, Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 00-55578.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 8, 2000.1

Decided Jan. 17, 2001.

Before JAMES R. BROWNING, PREGERSON, and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Petitioner Joshua Eric Swindell (“Swin-dell”) appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, in which he seeks relief from his state court conviction for the second degree murder of Keith Ogden. Swindell argues that he is entitled to habeas relief because the trial judge’s refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, a defense theory of the case, violated Swindell’s right to due process.

A criminal defendant is entitled to adequate instructions on a defense theory of the case “provided that [the defense theory] is supported by law and has some foundation in the evidence.” *United*
      *745
      *States v. Mason,*902 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir.1990). Because we find that Swindell’s theory of the case had no foundation in the evidence, we conclude that the trial judge did not commit error, much less constitutional error, in refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter.

AFFIRMED.

Judge JAMES R. BROWNING concurs in the judgment.

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,714
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,270
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (13,270)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     875
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,437
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,312
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   540
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (540)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (540)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (540)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1


 


November 19, 2021 


 


Signature Bank


2 Penn Plaza, Suite 1712


New York, New York 10121


Attention: Trevor Freeman


Telephone: (646) 968-4337


Email: trfreeman@signatureny.com


 


RE: Reduction of Commitment


 


Pursuant to Section 3.5 of the Revolving Credit and Security Agreement,
please accept this letter as written notice to reduce the Maximum Commitment from $275,000,000 to $180,000,000. Please note that this
reduction shall be made effective on November 26th, 2021.


 


If you have any questions, please contact Michaela Berman at 312-256-9820.
Thank you.


 


BORROWERS:


 


	GOLUB
    CAPITAL BDC 3, INC.	 
	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Christopher Ericson	 
	Name:
    Christopher Ericson	 
	Title:
    Authorized Signatory	 
	 	 
	GBDC
    3 FUNDING LLC	 
	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Christopher Ericson	 
	Name:
    Christopher Ericson	 
	Title:
    Authorized Signatory
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6343

WAYNE ANTHONY RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

M. MOUBAREK, Chief Medical Doctor; TERRI

MUNOZ, Head Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-1841-CCB)

Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 6, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Anthony Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Barry Chazen,

Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, BILLINGSLEY, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, P.A.,

Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Richardson v. Moubarek, No. CA-97-1841-CCB (D. Md. Feb. 18, 1998).

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
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-125 (Third Review)]

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission instituted this review on May 3, 2010 (75 FR 23298) and determined on August 6, 2010 that it would conduct an expedited review (75 FR 51112, August 18, 2010).

                    The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on September 30, 2010. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4183 (September 2010), entitled                     *Potassium Permanganate from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-125*                     (Third Review).                

Issued: October 1, 2010.

By order of the Commission.

William R. Bishop,

Acting Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2010-26112 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
584 A.2d 230

#### CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, CAMPBELL SOUP (TEXAS) INC. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 239 *N.J.Super.*403, 571 A.2d 969)
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CESAR AUGUSTO RENGIFO.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.