alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25347]


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

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD


Meetings

AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(Access Board) plans to hold its regular committee and Board meetings 
in Washington, DC, Tuesday and Wednesday, November 18-19, 2014 at the 
times and location listed below.

DATES: The schedule of events is as follows:

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

10:00-Noon Ad Hoc Committee Meetings: Closed to Public
1:30-2:30 p.m. Ad Hoc Committee on Frontier Issues
3:00-4:00 p.m. Ad Hoc Committee Meetings: Closed to Public

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

9:30-10:00 a.m. Budget Committee
10:00-11:00 a.m. Technical Programs Committee
11:00-Noon Planning and Evaluation Committee
1:30-3:00 p.m. Board Meeting

ADDRESSES: Meetings will be held at the Access Board Conference Room, 
1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the 
meetings, please contact David Capozzi, Executive Director, (202) 272-
0010 (voice); (202) 272-0054 (TTY).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the Board meeting scheduled on the 
afternoon of Wednesday, November 19, 2014, the Access Board will 
consider the following agenda items:

<bullet> Approval of the draft July 9 and September 10, 2014 meeting 
minutes (vote)
<bullet> Ad Hoc Committee Reports: Self-Service Transaction Machines; 
Information and Communications Technologies; Accessible Design in 
Education; Public Rights-of-Way and Shared Use Paths; Passenger 
Vessels; Frontier Issues; Transportation Vehicles; and Medical 
Diagnostic Equipment
<bullet> Budget Committee
<bullet> Technical Programs Committee
<bullet> Planning and Evaluation Committee
<bullet> Election Assistance Commission Report
<bullet> Executive Director's Report

    All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An 
assistive listening system, Communication Access Realtime Translation 
(CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board 
meeting and committee meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are 
requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances 
for the comfort of other participants (see www.access-board.gov/the-board/policies/fragrance-free-environment for more information).

David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2014-25347 Filed 10-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 207 (Monday, October 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that 
public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Wednesday, November 19, 2014, 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: National Atomic Testing Museum, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las 
Vegas, Nevada 89119.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Ulmer, Board Administrator, 
232 Energy Way, M/S 505, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 
630-0522; Fax (702) 295-5300 or Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.
    Tentative Agenda:
    1. Annual Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report--Work 
Plan Item #5.
    2. Assessment of the Underground Test Area Quality Assurance Plan 
Implementation--Work Plan Item #8.
    3. Potential New RCRA Part B Permitted Mixed Waste Disposal Unit--
Work Plan Item #9.
    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Nevada, welcomes the attendance 
of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every 
effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special 
needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, 
please contact Barbara Ulmer at least seven days in advance of the 
meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be 
filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals 
who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should 
contact Barbara Ulmer at the telephone number listed above. The request 
must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting 
in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. 
Individuals wishing to make public comments can do so during the 15 
minutes allotted for public comments.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing to Barbara Ulmer at 
the address listed above or at the following Web site: http://nv.energy.gov/nssab/MeetingMinutes.aspx.

    Issued at Washington, DC on October 21, 2014.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-25452 Filed 10-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Eli Sloan, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-15-08232-001-PCT-DLR 

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 219.) For the 

following reasons, Defendant’s motion is denied. 

On September 15, 2016, Defendant was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, assault 

with intent to commit aggravated sexual abuse, aggravated sexual abuse, assault resulting 

in substantial bodily injury, and assault by strangling. (Doc. 105.) The victim was 

Defendant’s estranged wife. Defendant was sentenced to the Bureau of Prisons for a term 

of 330 months. (Doc. 168.) Defendant appealed the jury’s convictions alleging errors 

committed by the prosecutor during closing arguments and the Court’s abuse of discretion 

in admitting evidence of prior acts under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. On 

March 8, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant’s convictions. 

United States v. Sloan, 756 Fed.Appx. 739 (9th Cir. 2019). Defendant now moves to 

appoint counsel in order to file a “motion for application of new standard in the direct 

appeal course[,]” in light of the recent Supreme Court decision Flowers v. Mississippi. 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(Doc. 219) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Or possibly in the Federal Habeas Corpus 

course.” Id. 

“[T]he right to appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further.” 

Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). Therefore, a prisoner has no 

constitutional right to appointed counsel for a collateral attack on a conviction. Id.

Defendant’s motion to appoint counsel, whether to appeal based on new standards or 

petition for writ of habeas corpus, is a collateral attack on convictions already affirmed by 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The Court, however, has discretion to appoint counsel in “exceptional 

circumstances.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 

(9th Cir. 1986). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the 

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims 

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

“Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching 

a decision on request of counsel[.]” Id. Here, Defendant has not made a sufficient showing 

that appointment of counsel is necessary at this time. Defendant is in a position similar to 

many other pro se prisoner litigants. For these reasons, Defendant’s motion is denied. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 219) is 

denied. 

Dated this 10th day of July, 2019. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ALVATON BETHEA.

May 8, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 29","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Sp2W4Ctmof\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-29\/\">Expedition 29<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-29\/embed\/#?secret=Sp2W4Ctmof\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 29” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Sp2W4Ctmof\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/exp29-portrait.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
Exhibit 10.33





 





 






    	 



    	 



    




 





 






    	 



    	 



    

 


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


.
#### Tardy *v.*The State.

In error.

*Friday, June*10.

THIS was an indictment for perjury against *John G. Tardy;*and the affidavit on which the perjury was. assigned is alleged in the indictment to be signed by him. *Held,*that an affidavit signed *Jonh Gariel Tardy*was not, in consequence of the variance, admissible as evidence in support of the indictment.
##### 



Exhibit 4.5(a) AMENDMENT TO
SEABULK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED
EQUITY OWNERSHIP PLAN WHEREAS, SEABULK INTERNATIONAL, INC.,formerly known as HVIDE MARINE INCORPORATED(the
Company), has heretofore adopted the HVIDE MARINE INCORPORATED AMENDED AND RESTATED EQUITY
OWNERSHIP PLAN(the Plan); and WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects; and WHEREAS,the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has authorized
this amendment on April 18, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows, effective as of April 18, 2005: I. Section 3.1(d) of the Plan shall be deleted and replaced with the following: (d) The Committee may provide in any Stock Agreement a vesting schedule. The
vesting schedule shall specify when such Awards shall become Vested and thus
exercisable. Notwithstanding any vesting schedule which may be specified in a Stock
Agreement, in the event the Participant terminates within 2 years following a Change
in Control, such Participants Awards granted under the Plan shall become 100%
Vested and exercisable. II. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.
#### Thomas Lawson *v.*D. P. Wright.

Attorney and Client — Consent Judgment — Power to Change.

After a consent judgment has been agreed on by litigants, their attorneys cannot change or annul same.

Same.

An attorney has no power to compromise his clients suits, nor to set aside a judgment in his favor.

APPEAL FROM CLINTON CIRCUIT COURT.

November *24,*1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

At the February term, 1866 of the court below, a judgment was rendered reciting that the parties were present in person, and their attorneys were also present, and by their agreement the con*353tract in. relation to the land was rescinded, and the judgment entered in conformity to the said agreement.

*VanWinkle, for appellant.*

*Winfrey, for appellee.*

Subsequently appellee filed an amended petition, setting forth the agreement of the parties, but alleges that before the judgment was rendered by the court, their attorneys ascertained that the parties could not be placed in *statu, quo*and that they would not have said judgment entered, and that it was afterwards entered by mistake.

If it be true, as alleged, that appellee’s attorney after the terms of settlement, and the character of the judgment to be entered were agreed upon by the parties, their attorneys, and the attorney of neither of them had any power to consent to a change of the terms of the settlement, much less to set aside the agreement. Such is not the nature of the employment of an attorney at law, he has no power to compromise his client’s suits, nor to set aside a judgment in his client’s favor, the-allegations of the amended petition were therefore insufficient to authorize the relief sought.

But even if the agreement should have been set aside, before appellee could have enforced a specific execution of the contract, he should have manifested the ability of his assignor to make to appellant a good title to the land, a tender of the relinquishment of his widow’s right of dower was not sufficient.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions for such proceedings to be had as may be necessary to carry out the consent judgment entered at February term, 1866.
#### COUNCILL v. TOWN OF BOONE BD. OF ADJUST.

No. 577P01

Case below: 146 N.C. App. 103

Petition by petitioner for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 November 2001.
#### F. C. McCalla, Trustee of Dehoney, et al *v.*P. Heggins.

Vendor and Purchaser — Deed from Legal Title Holder to Vendee to Save Expense of Making Intermediate Deeds.

A remote vendor who holds the legal title to land may convey it by agreement to a remote vendee in order to save the expense of making intermediate deeds.

APPEAL FROM SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT.

June 11, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

Although the larger and the smaller tracts were sold together, yet when the first installment of the purchase price was paid, by the agreement of the parties, so much thereof as should be sufficient to pay the whole cost of the smaller tract was to be so applied, and the residue thereof was to go as a payment on the larger tract, on which the lien was retained for what remained unpaid. And it was further agreed that Thomason, a remote vendor, but who held the legal title to the smaller tract, should convey it to Winn, to save the expense of making the intermediate deeds from Thom*495ason to Emerson, his immediate vendee, and he to Dehoney’s trustee, and Tilford, the surveyor, was directed to prepare the deed for Thomason to execute, which he did, and it was so executed, delivered and acknowledged before the proper officer before Heggins’ execution was levied on the land.

*Darnaby &*Prewitt, *for appellant.*

Cantrill, *for appellee.*

That the legal title passed by that deed to Winn for the smaller tract there can be no doubt, and that it would have been satisfactory to Winn, and was so until Heggins had his execution levied on it, there is as little doubt.

But even if that were not so, it is not shown that the larger tract, on which Dehoney and his trustee have a lien for all of the unpaid price, is not sufficient for its payment, and they should be required to look to it for payment.

We are satisfied, however, that the srhaller tract was subject to the sale, and levy, when Heggins *fi*fa'was levied on it, as the legal title was in Winn. And we, therefore, *affirm*the judgment.
#### Andrew Justice *v.*Harvey Justice.

Contracts — Acceptance of Confederate Paper Induced by Promise to See that it Was Good Money — Statute of Frauds.

The acceptance of the Confederate paper was induced by the appellant’s promise to see that it was good money, and he thereby undertook to pay his own debt. A written memorial of the contract was, therefore, unnecessary.

Same — Contract not- Illegal.

As it is not shown that the place where the contract was made was not under the control of the Confederate army, it cannot be adjudged that the contract was illegal.

APPEAL FROM PIKE CIRCUIT COURT.

January 14, 1868.

Harlan, *for appellant.*

Burns, *for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

This case does not depend on a collateral contract by the appellant to pay the debt of another. The acceptance of the Confederate paper was induced by the appellant’s promise to see that it was good money. The surrender of the note on Philips was induced by that promise, and all who made it thereby undertook to pay their own debt. A written memorial of the contract was, therefore, unnecessary, the statute of frauds applyig only to an undertaking to pay the debt of another. Moreover, the writing exhibited was sufficiently intelligible to take the case out of the statute. And consequently its exclusion by the court was erroneous, and would have been cause of reversal if the verdict had been for the appellant.

And, as the appellee never circulated the Confederate notes, and especially as it is not shown that the place where the contract was made was not under the control of the Confederate army, we cannot adjudge that the contract was illegal.

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Stephen Linehan, certify that:

 

1.                                       I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-Kcontaining distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periodsincluded in the year covered by this annual report, of Capital One MasterTrust;

 

2.                                       Based on myknowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of theperiod covered by this annual report;

 

3.                                       Based on myknowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar,agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

 

4.                                       Based on myknowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in the report andrequired to be delivered to the trustee in accordance with the terms of thepooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                       The reportsdisclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer’s compliancewith the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided by anindependent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with theUniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similarprocedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement,that is included in these reports.

 

In giving the certificationsabove, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the followingunaffiliated party: The Bank of New York.

 

Date: March 25, 2008

 
|   |   |   |   |   |   | By:    | /s/ Stephen Linehan                         |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   |   |   | Name:  | Stephen Linehan*                            |
|   |   |   |   |   |   | Title: | President,  Capital One Funding, LLC        |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |                                        |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   | *  Stephen Linehan is the senior officer in |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   | charge  of securitization of Capital One    |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Funding, LLC.                               |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |                                        |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |                                        |

 

 

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 499 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 499

  To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service under 
 construction at 7411 Barlite Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas, as the 
               ``Frank M. Tejeda Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1997

Mr. Bonilla (for himself and Mr. Ortiz) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service under 
 construction at 7411 Barlite Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas, as the 
               ``Frank M. Tejeda Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service under construction 
at 7411 Barlite Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Frank M. Tejeda Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Frank M. Tejeda Post Office 
Building''.
                                 <all>
```