alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 205 (Monday, October 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26663]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[Application No. 94-4A007]


Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an amended export trade certificate of 
review to Florida Citrus Exports L.C. (``FCE'') (Application 
<greek-i>94-4A007).

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce issued an amended Export Trade 
Certificate of Review to Florida Citrus Exports L.C. on October 13, 
2010. The Certificate has now been amended nine times. The previous 
amendment was issued to FCE on May 8, 2000, and a notice of its 
issuance was published in the Federal Register on May 12, 2000 (65 FR 
30564). The original Certificate for FCE was issued on February 23, 
1995, and a notice of its issuance was published in the Federal 
Register on May 8, 1995 (60 FR 12735).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of 
Competition and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, 
by telephone at (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-
mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0a5b4a3a180b4b2a1a4a5eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4c1d0c7c5e4d0d6c5c0c18ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act 
of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to 
issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing 
Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2010).
    The Office of Competition and Economic Analysis (``OCEA'') is 
issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the 
Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the 
Federal Register. Under section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), 
any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 
days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate 
district court of the United States to set aside the determination on 
the ground that the determination is erroneous.

Description of Amended Certificate

    FCE's Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to:
    1. Add the following new Members of the Certificate within the 
meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): 
Riverfront Packing Co. LLC, Vero Beach, FL; and Indian River Exchange 
Packers, Inc., Vero Beach, FL.
    2. Delete the following Members from FCE's Certificate: Dole 
Citrus, Vero Beach, FL; Harbor Island Citrus Inc., Vero Beach, FL; and 
Minton Sun, Inc. Ft. Pierce, FL.

    Dated: October 18, 2010.
Joseph E. Flynn,
Director, Office of Competition and Economic Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2010-26663 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM HENRY HAYES, JR.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certificate of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

        In connection with the quarterly report ofNano-Proprietary, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc W. Eller, the Chief Executive Officer ofthe 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 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        2.     The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of theCompany.

 

| Date:       October 30, 2003 |   /s/ Marc W. EllerMarc W. Eller Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# Soviet Soyuz spacecraft contrasted against a black-sky background

AST-02-093 (18 July 1975) --- This scene photographed with a hand-held 70mm camera from a rendezvous window of the American Apollo spacecraft in Earth orbit shows the Soviet Soyuz spacecraft contrasted against a black-sky background with Earth's horizon below.  The three major components of the Soyuz are the spherical-shaped Orbital Module (OM), the bell-shaped Descent Vehicle (DV) and the cylindrical-shaped instrument Assembly Module (AM). The docking system on the Orbital Module was specially designed to interface with the docking system on the Apollo's Docking Module (DM). The DM is visible very faintly at the bottom of the picture. The ASTP astronauts and cosmonauts visited each other's spacecraft while the Soyuz and Apollo were docked in Earth orbit for two days.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-ast-02-093/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenJuly 17, 1975ProducerJSCSize1883x1920pxPIA Numberast-02-093The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Sep 22, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 272 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President 

of the United States shall, with the help of the Congress, address comprehensive tax reform within the first 240 days of the President’s administration. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 8, 2017 

Mr. YOHO submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the President of the United States shall, with the help 

of the Congress, address comprehensive tax reform within the first 240 days of the President’s administration. 

Whereas the 44th President of the United States of America 

created the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal 

Responsibility and Reform to address our Nation’s fiscal 

challenges; 

Whereas the Commission was charged with identifying policies to improve our national fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the 

long run; 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 272 IH 

Whereas the President, the majority leader of the Senate, the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority 

leader of the Senate, and the minority leader of the 

House of Representatives made appointments to the 

Commission; 

Whereas the Commission proposed comprehensive tax reform 

measures to lower tax rates, reduce the deficit, simplify 

the tax code, and make America the best place to start 

a business and create jobs; and 

Whereas, that in the 240th year of our republic, it would be 

fitting to witness a Rose Garden signing ceremony enacting tax reforms within the President’s first 240 days in 

office: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the President of the United States shall, 

3 with the help of the Congress, address comprehensive tax 

4 reform within the first 240 days of the President’s admin5 istration. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-10387 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee

v. GEORGE WHITEHEAD, JR., Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-11-1
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Proceeding pro se andin forma pauperis , George Whitehead, Jr., federal p r i s o n e r # 35653-177, appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate his convictions f o r possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Whitehead contends he should have been granted a writ of audita querela pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, because he did not discover his claimed double-j e o p a r dy violation until after he had sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 2 0, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-10387 Document: 00511607363 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2011No. 11-10387

The question whether a prisoner may challenge his sentence via a writ of audita querela is reviewed de novo . E.g. , Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Ca rmouche , 449 F.3d 655, 662 (5th Cir. 2006) (questions of law reviewe d de
novo); United States v. Holt , 417 F.3d 1172, 1174 (11 th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“We review de novo the question of whether a prisoner may challenge h i s sentence by filing a motion for a writ of audita querela

. ” )

. T h e w rit is not available if the objection can be brought pursuant to any other post-conviction

r e m e dy. United States v. Miller , 599 F.3d 484, 488 (5th Cir. 2010). Thus, th e writ is not available when the prisoner may seek redress under § 2255. United S tates v. Banda , 1 F.3d 354, 356 (5th Cir. 1993). Neither a prior uns u c c e s s f u l § 2255 motion nor an inability to meet the requirements for pursuing a successive § 2255 motion renders t h e § 2255 remedy unavailable. Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 200 0). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-10387 Document: 00511607363 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6710

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BENANCIO CEPEDA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-98, CA-98-98-4)

Submitted: October 7, 1999 Decided: October 14, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Louis Stern, ROCHON & ROBERTS, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Assistant United States

Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

March 30, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on April 2, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58

and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date

that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Benancio Cepeda seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Cepeda, Nos. CR-93-98;

CA-98-98-4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 2, 1999).* 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.

DISMISSED
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN WALKER.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 205 (Monday, October 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27080]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of 
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

Time and Date: November 4, 2010, 12 noon to 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight 
Time.

Place: This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested 
person may call 877.768.0032, passcode, 4856462 to participate in this 
meeting.

Status: Open to the public.

Matters To Be Considered: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board 
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and 
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to 
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified 
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

    Issued on: October 19, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-27080 Filed 10-21-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.2 ADDENDUM TO THE CENTRUE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
2003 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
DATED OCTOBER 9, 2003 THIS ADDENDUMshall be attached to and made a part of the Incentive Stock Option Agreement
(the Agreement) between Centrue Financial Corporation and Keith M. Roseland dated October 9, 2003
under the terms of the Centrue Financial Corporation 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the Plan).
Effective as of April 21, 2005, the Agreement is revised as follows:  1.
    Section 4 of the Agreement is revised in its entirety to provide the following:4.      This Option shall vest in equal parts on each anniversary of the date of
this Agreement such that on the first anniversary of this Agreement, the Optionee
shall be vested in one fifth (1/5) of the Shares represented by the Option granted
hereby as reflected below: Date
    
    Number of Shares VestedOctober 9, 2004
    
    500October 9, 2005
    
    500October 9, 2006
    
    500October 9, 2007
    
    500October 9, 2008
    
    500
  Continuation of Vesting upon Retirement. In the event of Optionees
retirement from the Company, this Option shall continue to vest pursuant to the
above-listed vesting schedule.2.
    Section 5 of the Agreement is revised in its entirety to provide the following:(a)      Term of Option. This Option may not be exercised more than the
(10) years after the date of grant.(b)
      Death of Optionee. In the event of Optionees death prior to the
exercise in full of this Option, the Optionees beneficiary, executor, administrator
or personal representative, shall have the right to exercise the Option within a
period of twelve (12) months after the date of such death to the extent that the
right was exercisable at the date of death, and the unvested portion of the Option
shall expire as of the date of death. The parties hereby acknowledge that as a consequence of the foregoing changes to the
Agreement, that the Option shall no longer be treated as an incentive stock option for tax purposes
and that the Option shall be treated as a non-qualified stock option, for all purposes, for the
remainder of its term. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Addendum as of the date set forth above. CENTRUE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    
    KEITH M. ROSELANDBy:Its:
Dismiss and Opinion July 2, 2013 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00105-CR 

DARRYL JACKSON, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 5 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. MB11-35023-F 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Evans 

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s counsel has approved the 

motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeal be DISMISSED and 

this decision be certified below for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

PER CURIAM 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

130105F.U05
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LOUIS CHIPPAS.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 18

- 00110

- CR

JAMES BUNK PHELPS, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 276th District Court Titus County, Texas Trial Court No. CR 19,405

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.2 

### O RDER
Our review of the reporter’s record in this case indicates that it contains “sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a birth date, a home address, and the name of any person who was a minor at the time the offense was committed.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(a)(3). Volumes one, two, three, four and six of the reporter’s record contain the name of a person who was a minor at the time the offense was commit ted. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(b). Rule 9.10(g) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper form or electronic form, without redaction.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because volumes one through four and volume six of the reporter’s record contain sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Cou rt or her appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(g), to seal the electronically filed volumes one through four and volume six of the reporter’s record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: January 22, 2019
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00095

- CR

WILLIE MEDFORD, JR., Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 354th District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 28497

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.2 

### O R D E R Willie Medford, Jr., appellant, was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to twenty months in a s tate j ail facility . Medford’s notice of appeal was timely filed May 13, 2013. The clerk’s record was filed June 18, 2013, and the reporter’s record was filed
June 19, 2013, making appellant’s brief due July 19, 2013. Counsel is appointed. After one extension, appellant’s brief was due August 9, 2013. On August 30, 2013, this Court advised counsel for appellant that the appellate brief was three weeks past due, without a request for more time or any explanation to this Court for its absence. We warned counsel that if appellant’s brief and an adequate explanation for the delay w ere not received within ten days of the August 30 letter, the appeal would be subject to abatement to the trial court for a hearing. Rather than filing the brief with an adequate explanation for the delay, counsel for appellant filed another motion seeking a sixty

- day extension of the briefing deadline. On September 17, 2013, this Court overruled the motion for a sixty

- day extension of the briefing deadline and ordered appellant’s brief to be filed with this Court on or before October 8, 2013. Counsel for appellant ignored the order of this Court and failed to file appellant’s brief. Because the brief has not been filed and because we have heard nothing further from appellant’s counsel, we abate this case to the trial court pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b) for a hearing to determine why counsel has not filed the br ief, whether the brief can be promptly filed with this Court, whether Medford desires to prosecute this appeal, and whether he is indigent. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(b)(2). The hearing is to be conducted within fifteen days of3 the date of this order. The trial court may also address other matters as it deems appropriate, including appointing different counsel for appellant, if necessary. The trial court’s findings and recommendations on the issues set forth above shall be entered into the record of the case and presented to this Court in the form of a supplemental clerk’s record within fifteen days of the date of the hearing. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 38.8(b)(3). The reporter’s record of the hearing shall also be filed with this Court in the form of a suppl emental reporter’s record within fifteen days of the date of the hearing. See id

. All appellate timetables are stayed and will resume on our receipt of (1) the appellant’s brief or (2) the supplemental appellate record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY TH E COURT
Date: October 16, 2013
#### COUNTY OF ORANGE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

May 19, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132706 & (28)(29) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132706 

 COA: 269744 
 Wayne CC: 03-005302-01

CHARLES SCOTT GARNER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 26, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motions to remand are DENIED. 

d0618 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 32



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 of Pacific Land and Coffee Corporation

(the "Company") on Form  10-KSB for the  period  ending March 31, 2006,

as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the

"Report"),  I, Al Coscina, 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 and 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



/s/ Al Coscina

By: Al Coscina

Chief Financial Officer

July 11, 2006