alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Presidential Documents 69751 

Memorandum of September 30, 2014 

Delegation of Authority Under Section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, 

United States Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the authority 

under section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) to determine 

whether it is important to the security interests of the United States to 

furnish up to $123,000,000 in funds made available pursuant to chapter 

8 of part I of the FAA to provide assistance for Ukraine, Tunisia, Honduras, 

El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, Nigeria, Albania, and Vietnam 

without regard to any provision of law within the scope of section 614(a)(1) 

of the FAA and to authorize the furnishing of such assistance. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, September 30, 2014 

[FR Doc. 2014–27856 

Filed 11–20–14; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 4710–10 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with O1OB#1.EPS</GPH>
10371.

#### Farm *v.*The State.

Decided July 22, 1919.

Indictment for breaking and entering railroad-cur; from Thomas superior court—Judge Thomas. January 17, 1919.

*Titus, Delete & Hopleins,*for plaintiff in error.

*Cr B. Hay, solicitor-general,*contra,

Bloodwokth, J.

1. An indictment charging a violation of the statute codified in section 181 of the Penal Code of 1910 is sufficiently definite when it charges that the defendant “did then and there, unlawfully and with force and arms, break and enter a railroad-car in the possession of the Georgia Northern Railway Company at Boston, Ga., in said county, with intent to steal goods, wares, and freight in said ear being, and, after breaking, did steal therefrom goods and freight, to wit, 2 caddies of chewing tobacco and eleven sacks of flour, the same being freight consigned to Massey Mercantile Company, Barwick, Ga.” It “states the offence in the terms and language of this code,” and “so plainly that the nature of the offence charged may be easily understood by the jury.” Penal Code (1910), § 954; *Camp*v. *State,*3 *Ga.*417 (1). The indictment meets all the objects in requiring particularly in setting out the offence. *Wingard*v. *State,*13 *Ga.*396 (2), 400 (2).

2. When an indictment under § 181 of the Penal Code of 1910 alleges that the accused “did then and there, unlawfully and with force and arms, break and enter a railroad-car with-intent to steal goods, wares, and freight in said car being,” “no description, value, or ownership of any goods intended to be stolen need be alleged.” *Boyd*v. *State,*4 *Ga. App.*273 (61 S. E. 134) ; *Lanier*v. *State,*76 *Ga.*304 (1-a).

3. Under the ruling in *Gilbert*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*819 (43 S. E. 47), an indictment which charges that the accused did, “unlawfully and with force and arms, break and enter a railroad-car in the possession of the Georgia Northern Railway Company” sufficiently alleges the ownership of the car to have been in that company. See *Waters*v. *State,*15 *Ga. App.*342 (83 S. E. 200); *Markham*v. *State,*25 *Ga. 52.*

4. Under the above rulings there is no merit in any of the grounds of the amendment to the motion for new trial, and the demurrer to the indictment and the motion in arrest of judgment were properly overruled.

5. There was evidence to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
### NO.**03-15-00249-CV**

### IN**THE THIRD** **COURT OF** **APPEALS AUSTIN,** **TEXAS Michael** **Franzak, Appellant** **v.**

### Cielo**Multi Family** **LLC d/b/a** **Cielo Apartments,** **Appellee CIELO'S** **RESPONSE TO** **FRANZAK'S MOTION** **TO RECONSIDER** **[MOTION TO** **STAY]**

### Cielo**Multi Family** **LLC d/b/a** **Cielo Apartments** **(Cielo), Appellee,** **responds to** **the Motion** **to Reconsider** **filed by** **Michael Franzak** **(Franzak), Appellant,** **to point** **out false** **statements made** **by Appellant** **in his** **Motion. 1.** **On May** **11, 2015,** **Franzak filed** **handwritten Motion** **to Reconsider.** 

### 2.**On the** **third page** **of the** **three page** **motion, Franzak** **made representation** **and**

### certification**to the** **Court to** **the effect** **that he** **had spoken** **with counsel** **for Cielo** **about the** **Motion to** **Reconsider. This** **is false** **statement. Franzak** **never spoke** **with counsel** **for Cielo** **concerning such** **motion. 3.** **Franzak also** **falsely represented** **to the** **Court that** **counsel for** **Cielo did** **not oppose** 

### Franzak's**Motion to** **Reconsider. This** **is also** **false statement.** **No such** **representation was** **ever made** **by counsel** **for Cielo** **to Franzak.** **4. The** **Motion to** **Reconsider has** **been denied** **by this** **Court. Counsel** **for CIELO,** **however, felt** **it was** **necessary to** **bring to** **the Court's** **attention the** **fact that** **FRANZAK was** **making material** **misrepresentations to** **it, as** **summarized above.** **[Signature Block** **on Following** **Page]** ACCEPTED

03-15-00249-CV

5268909

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

5/13/2015 2:16:15 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK**Respectfully submitted,** **WARREN LAW** **FIRM 1011** **Westlake Drive** **Austin, Texas** **78746 Telephone** **(512) 347-8777** **Telecopier (512)** **347-7999 wsw@wlftexas.com** **[LLIAM S.** **WARREN Texas** **Bar No.** **20890800 Attorney** **for Appellee** **CERTIFICATE OF** **SERVICE certify** **that true** **and correct** **copy of** **the foregoing** **has been** **served on** **the parties** **listed below:** **Via First** **Class Mail** **Michael Franzak** **3501 Ranch** **Road 620** **South, Apt** **#19104 Austin,** **Texas 78738** **SERVED on** **the day of** **May, 2015** **WILLIAM S.** **WARREN**
Exhibit 4.a Amendment to the Series D 8% Subordinated Convertible Debentures.


This shall confirm our agreement to amend (the "Amendment") the Series D 8% Subordinated Convertible Debentures (the "Debentures") as set forth below.  All defined terms shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Debentures, except as otherwise noted.




	The Maturity Date of the Debentures is hereby extended from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2007.


	Paid-in-kind interest shall be paid through and including November 30, 2005.  Thereafter, interest shall no longer be paid-in-kind and shall be payable on a calendar quarterly basis to the Holders.  The first interest payment shall be for the month of December 31, 2005 and shall be paid on the first business day following the end of the month.  Interest payments thereafter shall be paid on the first business day following the end of each calendar quarter through the Maturity Date.


	All other terms of the Debentures shall remain the same.  This Amendment shall be effective November 30, 2005.

Please acknowledge your agreement to the Amendment by dating and signing below and returning the executed version to the undersigned.
CHYRON CORPORATION



By: /s/ Jerry Kieliszak

 Name:  Jerry Kieliszak

 Title:  Senior Vice President & CFO
















Accepted and Agreed to this

____ day of _____________, 2005

Holder: _______________________

By: ___________________________

 Name:

 Title:


Debenture No. ______________
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0133

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHARLES ANDREW DRURY,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 27, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 20 2022

04/20/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0133
GLD-400 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-2295

___________

IN RE: MAURICE THOMAS,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 11-cr-00618-003)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

August 22, 2013

Before: FUENTES, FISHER and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 9, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Maurice Thomas seeks a writ of mandamus to address alleged delays in the 

adjudication of his criminal proceedings in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

1

 A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only 

in extraordinary cases. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d 

Cir. 2005). A party seeking mandamus must show that he has “no other adequate means 

 

1 Although he is represented by counsel in the District Court, he has filed his mandamus 

petition pro se.
2

to attain the relief he desires” and that his right to the writ is “clear and indisputable.” 

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (quotation marks 

omitted). 

In October 2012, the District Court denied Thomas’ counseled motion to dismiss 

the charges against him based in part on his right to a speedy trial. To the extent Thomas 

intends to challenge that ruling he may not do so via a petition for a writ of mandamus. 

A mandamus petition is not a substitute for an appeal and may not be used to circumvent 

the final judgment rule.

2

 In re Baldwin, 700 F.3d 122, 127 (3d Cir. 2102); In re 

Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003). If he is convicted, Thomas may

challenge the District Court’s interlocutory rulings by taking an appeal after entry of a 

final judgment. See, e.g., United States v. Graves, — F.3d —, No. 12-2688, 2013 WL 

3112703 at *1–4 (3d Cir. June 21, 2013) (reviewing Speedy Trial Act claim on direct 

appeal); United States v. Willaman, 437 F.3d 354, 357–59 (3d Cir. 2006) (same). 

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

 

2 A District Court’s denial of a speedy trial motion is not immediately appealable. United 

States v. Culbertson, 598 F.3d 40, 48 (2d Cir. 2010) (“a district court’s order denying 

dismissal for an alleged violation of a defendant’s right to a speedy trial is not reviewable 

on interlocutory appeal”) (citing United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 857 (1978)); 

cf. United States v. Kuper, 522 F.3d 302, 303–305 (3d Cir. 2008) (holding that an order 

dismissing an indictment without prejudice pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act is not 

immediately appealable and may be appealed if defendant is re-indicted and convicted).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         2115738
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    63866
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    1368766
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4498110
<PP&E>                                         4048359
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1802732
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7845504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           897777
<BONDS>                                        1234514
<COMMON>                                        825649
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     3756742
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7845504
<SALES>                                        9083419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               9083419
<CGS>                                          6433361
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8540985
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                127010
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 607509
<INCOME-TAX>                                    228685
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    378824
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F.
Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS,
III                                  
|                                                          
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief
Executive Officer November 7, 2003





|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                  
|                                                            
|Douglas P. Williams Chief
Financial Officer November 7, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4727 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4727

  To amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to eliminate the market 
                            access program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2004

  Mr. Chabot introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to eliminate the market 
                            access program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Market Access Program Elimination 
Act.''

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5601 
et seq.) is amended by striking section 203 (7 U.S.C. 5623).
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 282(f)(2) of the 
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638a(f)(2)) is amended--
            (A) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``or'' after ``beef 
        cuts;'';
            (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``; or'' and inserting 
        a period; and
            (C) by striking subparagraph (E).
    (2) The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) is 
amended--
            (A) in section 211 (7 U.S.C. 5641), by striking subsection 
        (c); and
            (B) in section 402(a)(1) (7 U.S.C. 5662(a)(1)), by striking 
        ``203,''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                           SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of Microvision, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)  the Company's Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements and
   of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)   the information contained in the Company's Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/JEFF T. WILSON
    Jeff T. Wilson.
    Chief Financial Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------

---
H. R. 4381

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2811 Springdale Avenue in Springdale, Arkansas, as the ‘‘Harvey and Bernice Jones 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 located at

2811 Springdale Avenue in Springdale, Arkansas, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Harvey and Bernice Jones 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 ‘‘Harvey

and Bernice Jones Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
MAYTAG CORPORATION

                               Exhibit 23  

                      Consent of Ernst & Young LLP

                                <PAGE>



                      Consent of Independent Auditors





Shareowners and Board of Directors
Maytag Corporation

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Number 33-8249, Registration Statement Number 33-8248, Registration
Statement Number 33-6378, Registration Statement Number 33-22228, and
Registration Statement Number 33-26620 on Forms S-8; and Registration
Statement Number 33-35219 on Form S-3 of Maytag Corporation and in the
related Prospectuses of our report dated February 3, 1998, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Maytag Corporation
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
1997.






                    Ernst & Young LLP





Chicago, Illinois
March 25, 1998

<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.2


 





 


December 6, 2005


 


EMPLOYEE FIRST AND LAST NAME


 


Dear EMPLOYEE FIRST NAME,


 


Congratulations! We are pleased to confirm your participation in the
2006 Adelphia Communications Short-Term Incentive Plan (STIP).   The 2006 STIP was approved by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors on December 4,
2005.  The plan is a key
component of your total compensation package.


 


For you, the 2006 STIP means an opportunity to earn TARGET% of your salary, subject to proration for changes in
salary, and/or time in the plan.


 


2006 will be a challenging year as we finalize the sale of assets with
the buyers. Until the sale is finalized we need to maintain a sharp focus on
our goals and objectives and continue to improve operational and financial performance
and increase our subscriber base.


 


Recognizing that it is anticipated that the sale of Adelphia’s assets
to the buyers will close within the first half of the year, the Company
performance criteria under the 2006 STIP have only been developed for the first
six months of 2006.  If necessary, the
Company will develop performance criteria for the balance of 2006.


 


A summary of the plan and a plan document is attached for your
review.  Please take time to read and
understand it.  Think about what you can
personally do to improve results and help all of us achieve our goals.  Think about how we can better serve our
customers, and how you can lead your team to improve the business and to meet
our 2006 objectives.


 


Congratulations again and thank you for your continued support,
commitment and good work.


 


Sincerely,


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Bill Schleyer

  	
  Ron Cooper

  
	
  Chairman and CEO

  	
  President and COO

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Attachments
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40372

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ-MERCADO, 

also known as Miguel Villafranco-Ponce,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:04-CR-973-ALL

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Rodriguez-Mercado appeals his guilty-plea conviction

for being an alien unlawfully found in the United States after

deportation, having previously been convicted of an aggravated

felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b).

Rodriguez-Mercado challenges the constitutionality of

§ 1326(b). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although Rodriguez-Mercado contends that Almendarez-Torres was
No. 05-40372

-2-

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court

would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such

arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. 

See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Rodriguez-Mercado properly

concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.