alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30611]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

December 24, 2014.
    The Department of the Treasury will submit the following 
information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of 
publication of this notice.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before January 30, 2015 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other 
aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for 
reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for 
Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 
20503, or email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eea1a7bcafb1bd9b8c83879d9d878180aea1a3acc0aba1bec0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d996908b98868aacbbb4b0aaaab0b6b79996949bf79c9689f7beb6af">[email protected]</span></a> and (2) Treasury PRA 
Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 8141, Washington, 
DC 20220, or email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91c1c3d0d1e5e3f4f0e2e4e3e8bff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="38686a79784c4a5d594b4d4a41165f574e">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submission(s) may be 
obtained by emailing <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ffafadbebf8b8d9a9e8c8a8d86d1989089"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3666647776424453574543444f18515940">[email protected]</span></a>, calling (202) 622-1295, or 
viewing the entire information collection request at www.reginfo.gov.

Departmental Offices

    OMB Number: 1505-0152.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Request for Transfer of Property Seized/Forfeited by a 
Treasury Agency.
    Form: TD F 92-22.46.
    Abstract: Form TD F 92-22.46 is necessary for the application for 
receipt of seized assets by State and Local Law Enforcement agencies.
    Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 3,500.

Brenda Simms,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-30611 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
12228.

#### Hudson *v.*The State.

Decided May 11, 1921.

Indictment for murder — conviction of manslaughter; from Gilmer superior court — Judge Humphries presiding. January 22, 1921.

In the report of this case in 24 *Ga. App.*there is an error in the sixth line from the bottom of page 311, where the name “ Hudson ” appears instead of that of the person killed.

*Clay & Blair, B. L. Smith,*for plaintiff in error.

*John S. Wood, solicitor-general,*contra.

Luke, J.

When this case was previously here for review this court held: “ The defendant’s conviction of voluntary manslaughter was unauthorized by the evidence, and the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.” 24 *Ga. App.*310. The evidence in the instant case is the same as that reported when the case was formerly here. It necessarily follows that it was error, as assigned, to charge upon the law of voluntary manslaughter, the verdict was unauthorized by the evidence, and it was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., ooneur.*
3. Effective immediately, the parties agree to take all actions necessary to cause theInsurers to pay to the Corporation the cash surrender value of the Policies at the time oftermination (the “Cash Surrender Value”).4. Owner shall provide the Corporation with confirmation, together with back up acceptable toCorporation, of the amount of premiums actually paid out of pocket by Owner or Employee, as thecase may be (the “Premium Amount”).5. Promptly after actual receipt by the Corporation of both the Cash Surrender Value, andbackup substantiating the payment of the Premium Amount, the Corporation shallremit to Owner or Employee, the Premium Amount together with an additional amount tocompensate Owner or Employee, for Federal, State and local income taxes, if any, to be paid on suchpayment.6. **Amendment and Waiver****.**This Termination Agreement may not be amended, altered ormodified, except by a written instrument signed by the parties hereto, or their respectivesuccessors or assigns. No waiver of any right under this Termination Agreement will be effectiveunless it is in writing and signed by the party waiving such right.7. **Binding Effect**. This Termination Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to thebenefit of the Corporation and its successors and assigns, and the Employee, the Owner, and theirrespective successors, assigns, heirs, executors, administrators and beneficiaries.8. **Governing Law**. This Termination Agreement and the rights of the parties hereundershall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of New York.The parties have executed this Termination Agreement as of the day and year first above written.      MARTHA STEWART LIVING OMNIMEDIA, INC.
prtk-ex105_424.htm


 

Exhibit 10.5 

 

Amended and Restated Non-Employee Director Cash Compensation Policy

 

Effective as of January 1, 2015

 

Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), has established the following cash compensation policy for non-employee members of the board of directors of the Company (the “Board”):


	
1.
	
  All Non-Employee Directors. Each non-employee director will receive annual cash compensation in an amount equal to $40,000, accruing and payable on a quarterly basis at the end of each calendar quarter of service, as an annual retainer for his or her Board service.





	
2.
	
  Audit Committee Chair/Member. In addition to the compensation provided under any other provision of this policy, the chairperson of the Audit Committee will receive annual cash compensation in an amount equal to $15,000 and each other member of the Audit Committee will receive annual cash compensation in an amount equal to $7,500, accruing and payable on a quarterly basis at the end of each calendar quarter of service, as an annual retainer for his or her service as chairperson or member, as applicable, of the Audit Committee. Payments shall be prorated from the commencement of a director’s service.





	
3.
	
  Compensation Committee Chair/Member. In addition to the compensation provided under any other provision of this policy, the chairperson of the Compensation Committee will receive annual cash compensation in an amount equal to $10,000 and each other member of the Compensation Committee will receive annual cash compensation in an amount equal to $5,000, accruing and payable on a quarterly basis at the end of each calendar quarter of service, as an annual retainer for his or her service as chairperson or member, as applicable, of the Compensation Committee.





	
4.
	
  Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chair/Member. In addition to the compensation provided under any other provision of this policy, the chairperson of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will receive annual cash compensation in an amount equal to $6,000 and each other member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will receive annual cash compensation in an amount equal to $3,000, accruing and payable on a quarterly basis at the end of each calendar quarter of service, as an annual retainer for his or her service as chairperson or member, as applicable, of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.




The foregoing payments shall be prorated from the commencement of a director’s service on the Board and applicable committees.


	
5.
	
  Expenses. The Company will reimburse directors for ordinary, necessary and reasonable out-of-pocket travel expenses to cover in-person attendance at and participation in Board meetings.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto BARRERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-40450

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Jose I. Gonzalez-Falla, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

*607The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Roberto Barrera has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Barrera has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *607published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7610

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREGORY WAYNE WASHINGTON, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior 

District Judge. (6:09-cr-00001-NKM-1)

Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Wayne Washington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Craig Jon 

Jacobsen, I, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Wayne Washington, Jr., appeals the district 

court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Washington, No. 6:09-cr-00001-

NKM (W.D. Va. Sept. 10, 2012). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 12


                               HCC INDUSTRIES INC.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     For The Three Months Ended
                                                                 --------------------------------
                                                                    July 3,             June 27,
                                                                     1999                 1998
                                                                 -----------           ----------
<S>                                                              <C>                   <C>
Earnings:
     Earnings (loss) before taxes                                $    (1,132)          $    2,680
     Add:  Fixed Charges*                                              2,827                2,722
                                                                 -----------           ----------
                                                                 $     1,695           $    5,402
                                                                 -----------           ----------
                                                                 -----------           ----------
* Fixed Charges:

     Interest expense                                            $     2,827           $   2,722
                                                                 -----------           ---------
                                                                 $     2,827           $   2,722
                                                                 -----------           ----------
                                                                 -----------           ----------
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                        --(1)              2.0
                                                                 -----------           ----------
                                                                 -----------           ----------
</TABLE>

(1) There was a deficiency of earnings to fixed charges for the three months
    ended July 3, 1999 of $1,132.

 *  The ratios of earnings to fixed charges were computed by dividing earnings
    by fixed charges. For this purpose, "earnings" consist of earnings before
    taxes and extraordinary item plus fixed charges and "fixed charges" consist
    of interest expense and amortization of debt issuance costs.
Exhibit 31.2

              CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Robert Reitz, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Whole Living, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.



                                     /s/ Robert Reitz
Date: April 3, 2006                  ____________________________________
                                     Robert Reitz
                                     Chief Financial Officer
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

RONALD S. KLIMKEWICZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

September 19, 2024

v No. 364783

Saginaw Circuit Court

Family Division

SARAH L. KLIMKEWICZ, LC No. 18-037321-DM

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: RICK, P.J., and MURRAY and MALDONADO, JJ.

MURRAY, J. (concurring).

I concur with the majority opinion that, because he was a presumed father under MCL 

722.1433(e), as interpreted by Glaubius v Glaubius, 306 Mich App 157; 855 NW2d 221 (2014),

for the court to determine that the child was born out of wedlock for the purpose of establishing 

paternity, plaintiff was required to bring an action “within 3 years after the child’s birth or” raise 

“the issue in an action for divorce or separate maintenance between the presumed father and the 

mother.” MCL 722.1441(2). Because this case was filed twelve years after the child was born 

and well after the divorce proceedings were concluded, it is too late.

My concurrence is based on the concern that Glaubius incorrectly concluded that a 

paternity provision within a consent judgment of divorce does not provide the father with the 

“affiliated father” status under MCL 722.1433(b). The Glaubius Court’s conclusion that there is 

a requirement that the issue of paternity actually be litigated and resolved by the court for the 

matter to have been “determined in a court,” Glaubius, 306 Mich App at 167 (emphasis added), is 

a strained reading. As noted by former Justice Markman:

Glaubius likely erred by interpreting MCL 722.1433(1) to require a determination 

“by a court” when it actually requires only a determination “in a court.” The use of 

the word in suggests that an “affiliated father” may exist even if the court has not 

separately decided paternity. The parties here, at least arguably, did have it 

determined “in a court” that defendant was the child’s father when they agreed and 

finalized their consent judgment of divorce. Based on this understanding, when a 
-2-

controversy over paternity has been finalized in a court, the father is an “affiliated 

father.” [Dennis v Tyler, 501 Mich 969, 970 (2018) (MARKMAN, C.J., dissenting).] 

Because we can decide this matter without resolving that issue, it is a moot (but important) issue 

that should be resolved at a later time.

/s/ Christopher M. Murray
#### ROY STOLPESTAD v. L. F. UTECHT.1

May 22, 1950.

No. 35,239.

*Roy Stolpestad, pro se.*

*J. A. A. Burnquist,*Attorney General, and *Ralph A. Stone,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

1

 Reported in 42 N. *W.*(2d) 813.

Per Curiam.

Relator was charged by information of the county attorney of Hennepin county with having committed the crime of forgery in the second degree. He was convicted and was sentenced to the state penitentiary at Stillwater. He applied to the district court of Washington county, nineteenth judicial district, for a writ of habeas corpus. His petition was denied February 21, 1950. He appeals from the order denying his petition for such writ.

The case comes here *de novo.*The petition fails to comply with M. S. A. 589.04(4), which requires a copy of the warrant to be annexed. Relator alleges and relies principally upon the ground that he was not indicted by a grand jury and that the names of the witnesses appearing against him are not endorsed on the information.

We have now before us a motion on the part of relator for leave to appear and to argue his case orally and another motion on the *267part of respondent to quash the petition and to dismiss the appeal.

The facts alleged in relator’s petition and the grounds upon which he relies for a writ of habeas corpus were all heid to be insufficient to justify issuance of the writ in State ex rel. Hansen v. Utecht, 230 Minn. 579, 40 N. W. (2d) 441, and all matters presented here are governed by our decision in that case.

It is ordered that the petition of relator for leave to appear and present the matter orally is denied.

It is further ordered that the petition of respondent to quash relator’s petition and to dismiss the appeal is granted.

Dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anne F. Derry, Appellant.

[965 NYS2d 884]

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J), both rendered June 28, 2012, convicting her of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol (two counts; one count under indictment No. 12-00164 and one count under indictment No. 12-00206), upon her pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeals. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Skelos, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2182 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. Department 

of Interior, Department-Wide Programs, Wildland Fire Management for 

fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 

Department of Interior, Department-Wide Programs, 

Wildland Fire Management for fiscal year 2024. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, DEPART5 MENT-WIDE PROGRAMS, WILDLAND FIRE 

6 MANAGEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for U.S. Department of Interior, Department-Wide 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2182 IH

1 Programs, Wildland Fire Management for fiscal year 

2 2024 may not exceed $941,211,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB