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.                  

###### General Services Administration

          - [Notice-CX-2014-01; Docket No. 2014-0002; Sequence 32]

# AGENCY:

General Services Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the appointment of new members to the General Services Administration Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board. The Performance Review Board assures consistency, stability, and objectivity in the performance appraisal process.

# DATES:

*Effective:*                         November 10, 2014.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Antonia T. Harris, Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of Human Resources Management, General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, 202-501-0398.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5 U.S.C. requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review board(s). The board is responsible for making recommendations to the appointing and awarding authority on the performance appraisal ratings and performance awards for the Senior Executive Service employees.

The following have been designated as members of the Performance Review Board of the General Services Administration:

Denise Roth, Deputy Administrator—Chair.

Antonia T. Harris, Chief Human Capital Officer.

Christine J. Harada, Associate Administrator for Governmentwide Policy.

Giancarlo Brizzi, Principal Deputy Associate Administrator for Governmentwide Policy.

Thomas A. Sharpe, Jr., Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service.

Kevin Youel Page, Deputy Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service.

Linda C. Chero, Regional Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service, Mid-Atlantic Region.

Norman S. Dong, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service.

Michael S. Gelber, Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings Service.

George E. Northcroft, Regional Administrator, Northwest Arctic Region.

Dated: November 3, 2014.

Dan Tangherlini,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2014-26624 Filed 11-7-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-34-P
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 V. ) 20 CR 309-1 

 ) Judge Virginia M. Kendall 

LARRY JONES, ) 

OBJECTION TO THE FILING AND COSIDERATION OF THE

GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

 Defendant Larry Jones, by his attorney Phillip A. Turner, respectfully

submits the following as his objection to the filing and consideration of the 

government’s sentencing memorandum, which was filed on July 13, 2023, at 

9:54 pm: 

1. Defendant Jones pleaded guilty on January 19, 2023, and this Court 

ordered that the government and defendant file their respective sentencing 

memoranda on April 7, 2023.

2. Pursuant to this Court’s order, defendant Jones filed his sentencing 

memorandum on April 7, 2023. Docket #184. The government filed 

nothing.

3. On July 13, 2023, three months after the court ordered filing date, the 

government filed its sentencing memorandum. The government did not file

a motion for leave to file its sentencing memorandum stating good cause as 

to why the government believes that the government has good cause to file 
 

2

its sentencing memorandum three months late. The government filed its 

memorandum six days prior to the sentencing hearing scheduled for July 19, 

2023. The government’s sentencing memorandum makes allegations of 

uncharged conduct regarding drug transactions and defendant’s involvement

in a murder. Defendant does not want to wait to make this objection at the 

sentencing hearing in order to conserve the court’s time. 

 Wherefore, defendant Jones objects to the filing and consideration of the 

government’s sentencing memorandum. 

 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Phillip A. Turner

Phillip A. Turner

Attorney for defendant

20 North Clark Street

Suite 3300

Chicago, Illinois 60602

312-899-0009

 pturner98@sbcglobal.net
 

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that the following document:

OBJECTION TO THE FILING AND COSIDERATION OF THE

GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

was served in accordance with Fed.R.Crim.P. 49, and L.R.5.5, and the 

General Order on Electronic case Filing (ECF) pursuant to the district 

court’s system as ECF filers.

 

 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Phillip A. Turner

Phillip A. Turner

Attorney for defendant

20 North Clark Street

Suite 3300

Chicago, Illinois 60602

312-899-0009

 pturner98@sbcglobal.net
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel Production, Analysis, and Distribution of Cannabis and Related Materials (7793).                    

*Date:*                         December 2, 2014.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lyle Furr, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 4227, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, (301) 435-1439,                         *lf33c.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 18, 2014.

Michelle Trout, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-27669 Filed 11-21-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Standard Companies Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frederic M. Poses, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Frederic M. Poses  
|Frederic M. Poses      
|Chief Executive Officer

April 26, 2006
Exhibit 

D
Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 33-6 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:409
Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 33-6 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:410
Exhibit 23.1

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED**

**PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTING FIRM**

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-126867) pertaining to the MPC Corporation 2001 Equity Incentive Plan and the MPC Corporation 2004 Equity Incentive Plan, Registration Statement (333-128846) of MPC Corporation on Form S-3, and Registration Statement (No. 333-138529) of MPC Corporation on Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3 of our report dated April 2, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of MPC Corporation included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006.

 

 

|   |                                       |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & HottmanPC |
|   |                                       |
|   |                                       |
|   | Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC    |

 

March 31, 2007

Denver, Colorado
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United St ates District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3080

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Christopher Orville Myers, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 5, 2007 Filed: January 30, 2007

___________ Before MURPHY, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Christopher Myers (Myers) appeals his conviction and the 28-month prison sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pled guilty to mailing threatening communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876. Myers’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Myers entered into a plea agreement in which he waived his right to appeal, with limited exceptions. We conclude the wa iver is valid, because the record shows-2- Myers entered into both the plea agreem ent and appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (concluding this court will enforce an appeal waiver contained in plea agreement when “both the waiver and pl ea agreement were entered into knowingly and voluntarily”). To the extent Myers argue s his counsel was ineffective, we see no reason to depart from this court’s usual ru le of requiring ineffective-assistance claims to be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, where a proper record can be developed. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez , 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006) (stating this court “will consider ineffective-assist ance claims on direct appeal only where the record has been fully devel oped, where not to act would amount to a plain miscarriage of justice, or where counsel’s error is readily apparent”).
Having determined Myers entered into both the plea agreement and appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, we concludethe waiver bars the arguments raised by Myers and his counsel. In addition, we have reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues that fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver . We conclude no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the wa iver in this appeal. Cf. Andis , 333 F.3d at 890 (explaining the court will not enforce a validplea waiver where to do so would result in miscarriage of justice). Thus, we specifically enforce the appeal waiver by dismissing this appeal. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Myers’s pending motions.

______________________________
Argued: November 3, 2022

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

Misc. No. 3

September Term, 2022

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION 

OF WILLIAM WALLACE MONTIER FOR 

ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND 

 

 

Fader, C.J.

Watts

Hotten

Booth

Biran

Gould

Eaves

JJ.

 ORDER

 Filed: November 7, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION * IN THE

OF WILLIAM WALLACE MONTIER * COURT OF APPEALS

FOR ADMISSION TO THE * OF MARYLAND

BAR OF MARYLAND * Misc. No. 3

 * September Term, 2022

O R D E R

The Court having considered the adverse recommendation of the Character 

Committee for the Third Appellate Judicial Circuit and the favorable recommendation of 

the State Board of Law Examiners concerning the application of William Wallace Montier

for admission to the Bar of Maryland, it is this 7th day of November, 2022

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority of the Court 

concurring, that the favorable recommendation of the State Board of Law Examiners is 

accepted, and it is further

ORDERED, that the applicant, upon taking the oath prescribed by statute, 

be admitted to the practice of law in this State.

 /s/ Matthew J. Fader

 Chief Judge
9417.

#### Davis *v.*Williams.

Decided April 16, 1919.

Certiorari; from Thomas superior court—Judge Thomas. D&cember 1, 1917.

In, this case it was held by the Supreme Court that under the act, creating the city court of Boston (Acts 1914, p. 194) a counter-affidavit to a distress warrant properly returned to that court is triable at the first term thereafter.

*Clifford E. Hay,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. U. Merritt, W. I. MacIntyre,*contra.

Jenkins, J.

In accordance with the answers made by the Supreme Court to the questions certified to it in this case (148 *Ga.*765, 98 S. E. 5), the ruling of the court below in refusing to sanction the certiorari is sustained.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
9811.

#### Western and Atlantic Railroad Company *v.*Mallett.

Stephens, J.

1. Where an amendment to the pleadings was offered and allowed, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling a motion, made by the opposite party, to continue, the case on the ground of surprise, when the movant made no showing to the effect that he was “less prepared for trial, and how, than he would have been if such amendment had not been made, and that such surprise is not claimed for the purpose of delay.” Civil Code (1910), § *5714; Georgia Life Ins. Co.*v. *Hanvey,*143 *Ga.*786 (2) (85 S. E. 1036).

2. Where the existence of a fact was affirmed by positive evidence and denied by negative evidence, an issue was raised, and the trial judge committed no error in properly submitting such issue to the jury. *Pendergrast*v. *Greeson,*6 *Ga. App.*47 (64 S. E. 282); *Innis*v. *State,*42 *Ga.*473.

3. The assignments of error complaining of the charge of the court, as set *368forth in the 2d and 4th grounds of the amendment to the motion for new trial, are without merit. The charge was full and’ fair and correctly presented all of the issues in the case to the jury.-

Decided February 1, 1919.

Action for damages; from Whitfield superior court—Judge Tarver. May 7, 191&

*Tye, Peeples & Tye, Maddox, McCamy & Shumate,*for plaintiff in error. *Glenn & House,*contra..

4.-The testimony of the plaintiff, however improbable, was not "in contradiction to the well-established physical laws of the universe.” There was evidence to support the verdict, and no error of law was committed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*

Broyles, P. J.,

concurring.

In my opinion it is a very close question as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover under the evidence adduced. The great preponderance and weight of the evidence was unquestionably in favor of the defendant, and the slight evidence which favored the plaintiff was weak, unsatisfactory, contradictory in spots, and improbable. However, I can not say that the verdict was not authorized by *any*evidence; and since it has been approved by the trial judge, and no error of law appears to have been committed upon the trial, this court is without jurisdiction to interfere, and I must concur in the affirmance óf the judgment.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 2014)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 67035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26896]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 67035]]

                Notice of November 7, 2014

                
Continuation of the National Emergency With 
                Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass 
                Destruction

                On November 14, 1994, by Executive Order (E.O.) 12938, 
                the President declared a national emergency with 
                respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the 
                national security, foreign policy, and economy of the 
                United States posed by the proliferation of nuclear, 
                biological, and chemical weapons (weapons of mass 
                destruction) and the means of delivering such weapons. 
                On July 28, 1998, the President issued E.O. 13094, 
                amending E.O. 12938, to respond more effectively to the 
                worldwide threat of weapons of mass destruction 
                proliferation activities. On June 28, 2005, the 
                President issued E.O. 13382, which, inter alia, further 
                amended E.O. 12938, to improve our ability to combat 
                proliferation. The proliferation of weapons of mass 
                destruction and the means of delivering them continues 
                to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the 
                national security, foreign policy, and economy of the 
                United States; therefore, the national emergency first 
                declared on November 14, 1994, and extended in each 
                subsequent year, must continue. In accordance with 
                section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 
                U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency 
                declared in Executive Order 12938.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    November 7, 2014.

[FR Doc. 2014-26896
Filed 11-10-14; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3295-F5
EXHIBIT 13

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 Emission Differentials Ltd. (the Company) in  Amendment No. 1 to Form 20-F for the period ended April 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steve Turcotte, CEO and Principal Accounting Officer, 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)  The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: April 18, 2007

By:  /s/ Steve Turcotte

Name:  Steve Turcotte

Title:    Chief Executive Officer and Principal



Accounting Officer
10312.

#### Southern Railway Company *v.*Smallwood.

Broyles, P. J.

1. This court can not pass upon the question as to whether the trial court erred in disallowing the proffered amendment to the defendant’s answer, it appearing that upon a former trial of'the case, at a preceding term of the court, the identical amendment was disallowed by the court, and that no exception to that judgment was taken.

2. The original answer of the defendant containing no plea of res adjudicata, and the amendment setting up such a defense having been disallowed, the court did not err in repelling the documentary evidence offered to show that in a former suit between the plaintiff’s wife and the defendant there was an adjudication as to the injuries and the pain and suffering sued for. Furthermore, upon the trial the *811court distinctly instructed the jury that the plaintiff could not recover for any pain and suffering sustained by his wife.

Decided June 13, 1919.

Action for damages; from city court of Hall county—Judge Wheeler. December 23, 1918.

*J. O. Adams, Ed. Quillian, C. L. Faulhner, E. A. Neely,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. N. Davie, E. D. Kenyon,*contra.

3. The court erred in charging the jury: “If you believe, under the law, or under the rules of law rather, and the evidence in this case, that the plaintiff’s wife was a passenger on one of the trains of the defendant, . as he alleges she was, and that she received an injury, then the law would raise a presumption that the defendant was negligent in each manner complained of in the petition, 'and this presumption would be sufficient upon which to base a recovery, unless the defendant rebutted this presumption by evidence sufficient to satisfy your minds that at the particular time in question it was exercising the _ degree of care required of it by law and discharged its duty in this particular.” This charge was erroneous in that it virtually instructed the jury that the presumption of negligence against the defendant would arise if the plaintiff’s wife was injured in any manner, whether by the running of the defendant’s trains *or from some other cause,*while a passenger upon one of its trains. This presumption arises only where the injury is caused by the running of the defendant’s trains. The error was not cured in any other part of the charge, and as this case is a very close one, under the evidence, as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover, the error requires a new trial of the case.

4. In the light of the facts of the case and of the entire charge of the court, the other exceptions to the charge are without substantial merit.

*Judgment reversed. Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*