alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30476]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

[Public Notice: 2014-0054]


Application for Final Commitment for a Long-Term Loan or 
Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 Million: AP088920XX

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with 
Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United 
States (``Ex-Im Bank''), that Ex-Im Bank has received an application 
for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in 
excess of $100 million (as calculated in accordance with Section 
3(c)(10) of the Charter).
    Comments received within the comment period specified below will be 
presented to the Ex-Im Bank Board of Directors prior to final action on 
this Transaction.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2015 to be 
assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction 
by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov at 
WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV. To submit a comment, enter EIB-2014-0054 under the 
heading ``Enter Keyword or ID'' and select Search. Follow the 
instructions provided at the Submit a Comment screen. Please include 
your name, company name (if any) and EIB-2014-0054 on any attached 
document.
    Reference: AP088941XX.
    Purpose and Use:
    Brief description of the purpose of the transaction:
    To support the export of U.S.-manufactured commercial aircraft to 
Turkey.
    Brief non-proprietary description of the anticipated use of the 
items being exported:
    To be used for passenger air service between Turkey and other 
countries. To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the items 
being exported are not expected to produce exports or provide services 
in competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services 
by a United States industry.
    Parties:
    Principal Suppliers: The Boeing Company.
    Obligor: Turk Hava Yollari A.O.
    Guarantor(s): N/A.
    Description of Items Being Exported:
    Boeing 777 aircraft.
    Information on Decision: Information on the final decision for this 
transaction will be available in the ``Summary Minutes of Meetings of 
Board of Directors'' on http://exim.gov/newsandevents/boardmeetings/board/.
    Confidential Information: Please note that this notice does not 
include confidential or proprietary business information; information 
which, if disclosed, would violate the Trade Secrets Act; or 
information which would jeopardize jobs in the United States by 
supplying information that competitors could use to compete with 
companies in the United States.

Lloyd Ellis,
Program Specialist, Office of the General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014-30476 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
Exhibit 12
 
 Third Quarter
    
    
    First Nine Months2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2008Computation
of Earnings:Income (loss) before income taxes
    
    $
    17,430
    
    
    $
    (2,963
    )
    
    $
    50,056
    
    
    $
    16,536Add:Interest expense
    
    
    8,289
    
    
    
    8,810
    
    
    
    26,332
    
    
    
    27,976Amortization of debt
premium/discount and expenses
    
    
    593
    
    
    
    608
    
    
    
    1,811
    
    
    
    1,834Interest portion of rent expense
    
    
    391
    
    
    
    350
    
    
    
    1,116
    
    
    
    992Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    26,703
    
    
    $
    6,805
    
    
    $
    79,315
    
    
    $
    47,338Computation of Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    8,289
    
    
    $
    8,810
    
    
    $
    26,332
    
    
    $
    27,976Capitalized interest
    
    
    13
    
    
    
    63
    
    
    
    64
    
    
    
    324Amortization of debt premium/discount and expenses
    
    
    593
    
    
    
    608
    
    
    
    1,811
    
    
    
    1,834Interest portion of rent expense
    
    
    391
    
    
    
    350
    
    
    
    1,116
    
    
    
    992Fixed charges
    
    $
    9,286
    
    
    $
    9,831
    
    
    $
    29,323
    
    
    $
    31,126Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    2.88
    
    
    
    0.69
    
    
    
    2.70
    
    
    
    1.52
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0398. LARRY TIMOTHY CARTER v. SHERRY TILLMAN, CLERK.

On December 14, 2017, the trial court entered an order denying Larry Timothy

Carter’s motion for a free copy of his guilty plea transcript. On February 1, 2018,

Carter filed an application for discretionary appeal in the Supreme Court, which

subsequently transferred the application here. We lack jurisdiction because the

application was not timely filed.

To be timely, an application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30

days of the entry of the order or judgment to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d);

Hill v. State, 204 Ga. App. 582, 582 (420 SE2d 393) (1992). The requirements of

OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for

appeal not made in compliance therewith. Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734, 734 (380

SE2d 57) (1989). Carter filed this application 49 days after entry of the order he

seeks to appeal, and it is therefore untimely. Accordingly, this application is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

April 18, 2018

04/18/2018
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2029 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Education, College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program 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 Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Education, College Housing and Academic 

Facilities Loans Program 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 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, COLLEGE 

5 HOUSING AND ACADEMIC FACILITIES LOANS 

6 PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Education, College Housing and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2029 IH

1 Academic Facilities Loans Program for fiscal year 2024 

2 may not exceed $0. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00144-CR

IN RE: REGINALD REECE

Original Mandamus Proceeding

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

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 6, 2014, this Court found reversible error in the sentencing proceeding of the 

trial of Reginald Reece and remanded the case to the trial court for a new punishment hearing. 

See Reece v. State, 06-13-00082-CR, 2014 WL 1851322 (Tex. App.—Texarkana May 6, 2014, 

no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Reece has now filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus asking this Court to require the trial court to bench warrant Reece to Bowie County 

for a new punishment hearing.1

The standard for mandamus relief articulated by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 

requires the relator to establish that (1) there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged 

harm, and (2) only a ministerial act, not a discretionary or judicial decision, is being sought.

State ex. rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Due to the nature of this remedy, it is Reece’s 

burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 

S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a 

pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he 

seeks.”).

 1

Reece was convicted of theft of property valued at $500.00 or more but less than $1,500.00. See TEX. PENAL CODE 

ANN. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2014). He had twice been convicted of theft, making this a state jail felony 

offense. The State also proved two prior felony convictions, which increased the punishment to second-degreefelony level. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.425(b) (West Supp. 2014). The judgment indicates that Reece was 

convicted of a second degree felony. Reece requests that we issue a new judgment showing that he was convicted 

only of a state jail felony offense. Since this case is remanded for another punishment hearing, a new judgment and 

sentence will be issued by the trial court after Reece’s new punishment hearing. Therefore, it is unnecessary for us 

to modify the present judgment. 
3

After we received Reece’s petition, the trial court notified this Court that a bench warrant 

had been issued for Reece and that Reece is currently in the Bowie County Jail awaiting a 

punishment trial. Because Reece has attained all the relief sought before this Court, we deny his 

petition for a writ of mandamus. 

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: August 28, 2014

Date Decided: August 29, 2014

Do Not Publish
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 3.3



                       CERTIFICATE OF RETIREMENT OF STOCK
                                       OF
                                  SYMBION, INC.

                     Pursuant to Section 243 of the General
                    Corporation Law of the State of Delaware

            Symbion, Inc. (the "Corporation"), a corporation organizing and
existing under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"Delaware General Corporation Law"), does hereby certify the following:

            1. The Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, of the Corporation
authorizes the issuance of 16,946,316 shares of Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value
per share ("Preferred Stock"). Of such shares of Preferred Stock, 4,341,726
shares have been designated as Series A Convertible Preferred Stock ("Series A
Preferred Stock") and 2,604,590 shares have been designated as Series B
Convertible Preferred Stock ("Series B Preferred Stock") pursuant to the
Certificate of Designation of Rights and Preferences of Series A Convertible
Preferred Stock and Series B Convertible Preferred Stock filed with the Delaware
Secretary of State on September 16, 2002 (the "Certificate of Designation"). All
of the designated Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock was
issued in 2002.

            2. On February 11, 2004, all of the issued and outstanding shares of
Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock were converted into shares
of Common Stock of the Corporation and the right to receive a cash payment, in
accordance with the provisions of the Certificate of Designation.

            3. Pursuant to the Certificate of Designation, the shares of issued
and outstanding Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock so
converted are prohibited from being reissued and shall be canceled, retired and
eliminated from the shares which the Corporation shall be authorized to issue.

            4. Pursuant to Section 243 and other applicable provisions of the
Delaware General Corporation law, upon the effective date of this Certificate,
the Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, of the Corporation shall be
further amended so as to effect a reduction of the authorized shares of
Preferred Stock from 16,946,316 shares to 10,000,000 shares.

                          [Signature on following page]


<PAGE>



            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Symbion, Inc. has caused this Certificate to be
 signed by its duly authorized officer, as of the 10th day of March, 2004.


                                            SYMBION, INC.



                                            By:   /s/ R. Dale Kennedy
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  R. Dale Kennedy
                                                  Secretary and Vice President
                                                  of Management Services
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1853 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, Offices of 

the Secretaries of the Conference of the Majority and the Conference 

of the Minority for fisal 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 House Administration 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, Offices of the Secretaries of the Conference of the 

Majority and the Conference of the Minority for fisal 

year 2024. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1853 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 SENATE, OFFICES OF THE SECRETARIES OF 

3 THE CONFERENCE OF THE MAJORITY AND 

4 THE CONFERENCE OF THE MINORITY FOR 

5 FISAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Senate, Offices of the Secretaries of the Con9 ference of the Majority and the Conference of the Minority 

10 for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $843,402. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32**

** **

**18U.S.C. Section 1350 Certifications of Chief Executive and Chief FinancialOfficers**

** **

*The following statement is being furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission solely for purposes of Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), which carries with it certaincriminal penalties in the event of a knowing or willful misrepresentation.*

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, NW

Washington, DC  20549

 

Re:  Andrew Corporation

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

In accordance with the requirements of Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC 1350), each of the undersigned herebycertifies that:

 

(i)                                     this CurrentReport on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(ii)                                  the informationcontained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Andrew Corporation.

 

 
| Dated as of this 12th day of August 2004. |                    |
|------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                                           |                    |
|                                           |                    |
|  /s/ Ralph E. Faison                      |                    |  /s/ Marty R. Kittrell |   |
| Ralph E. Faison                                | Marty R. Kittrell       |
| President and Chief Executive Officer          | Chief Financial Officer |
|                                                |                         |  |  |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required bysection 906 has been provided to Andrew Corporation and will be retainedby Andrew Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Jose A. Ayala, Respondent, v Maria G. Ayala, Appellant.

[830 NYS2d 160]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), dated August 5, 2005, as, without a hearing, granted that branch of the plaintiff husband’s motion which was to appoint a receiver for the purpose of selling certain property jointly owned by the parties.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing and new determination of that branch of the motion which was to appoint a receiver for the purpose of selling certain property jointly owned by the parties.

In this case, the Supreme Court issued an order which, inter alia, referred that branch of the husband’s motion which was to appoint a receiver to compel the wife to purchase the husband’s share in a parcel of real property to a Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter JHO) to hear and report. However, the JHO never held a hearing and simply recommended that a receiver be appointed. The Supreme Court thereafter confirmed this recommendation. The JHO should have held the hearing as directed by the Supreme Court (see *Post v Post,*141 AD2d 518 [1988]; *Forbush v Forbush,*115 AD2d 335 [1985]). Moreover, under all of the facts and circumstances of this case, a hearing was necessary prior to determining that branch of the motion in issue. Santucci, J.E, Goldstein, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2096 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of Columbia, 

Federal Payment for Defender Services in DC Courts 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 Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of Columbia, Federal Payment for Defender Services in DC Courts 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 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FEDERAL PAYMENT 

5 FOR DEFENDER SERVICES IN DC COURTS 

6 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for District of Columbia, Federal Payment for DeVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:58 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2096.IH H2096

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2096 IH

1 fender Services in DC Courts for fiscal year 2024 may 

2 not exceed $46,005,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kennon BRADFORD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-30070

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2006.

*423John Francis Murphy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, William P. Gibbens, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kennon Bradford, Springfield, MO, pro se.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kennon Bradford, federal prisoner # 26436-034, was convicted by jury verdict of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Bradford filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied Bradford’s motion but granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the issue whether his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrantless search of a rental car rented by Bradford’s girlfriend, Karen Barnes.

In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Bradford must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687-94, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Failure to establish either prong is fatal to the claim. *Id.*at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

The district court determined that counsel did not err in failing to challenge the search and the evidence it produced. Voluntary consent to a search is an exception to the general rule that warrantless searches are per se invalid. *Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,*412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). Barnes rented the car in her name. Bradford acknowledges that Barnes consented to the search of the car. Her consent provided an exception to the warrant requirement. *Id.*Thus, counsel did not have cause for objecting to the search of the car and the subsequent seizure of the firearm. Counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to object or file a motion to suppress. It is unnecessary to evaluate the second prong of *Strickland.*

Although Bradford argues other issues in his appellate brief, he does not request an expansion of the COA grant. Therefore, our review is limited to the issue on which the district court granted a COA. *United States v. Kinder,*150 F.3d 429, 430-31 *&*n. 1 (5th Cir.1998); *Lackey v. Johnson,*116 F.3d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Bradford’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

*

 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6748

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MALE LEWIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR92-301-S, CA-97-1380-S)

Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Male Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Jefferson Gurney, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Lewis, Nos. CR-92-301-S; CA-97-1380-S (D.

Md. Apr. 30, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED