alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00610]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD707


North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC); Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: There will be a joint meeting of the North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council (Council) and International Pacific Halibut 
Commission (IPHC) in Seattle, WA.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, February 5, 2015, from 10 
a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Renaissance Hotel, 515 
Madison Street, South Room, Seattle, WA.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 
4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Witherell, Council staff; 
telephone: (907) 271-2809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Council/IPHC agenda:
1. Introductions/opening comments
2. Brief history of NPFMC/IPHC/NMFS interactions
3. Brief description of respective management authorities and 
applicable laws
4. Current data/information collection issues relative to stock 
assessment and management; Reconciling bycatch estimates for use in 
stock assessment and Catch Limit Fishing Mortality Rate (FCEY) 
determinations; Improving estimates of discard mortalities and discard 
mortality rates (DMRs(\) in the directed halibut and other fisheries
5. Discussion of current management measures and issues of mutual 
interest; IPHC Total mortality accounting framework and Scientific 
Statistical Committee (SSC) review; Council BSAI halibut Prohibited 
Species Catch (PSC) reduction package and SSC review; Abundance-based 
PSC limits (background discussion being drafted by NPFMC/IPHC)
6. Identify areas of mutual interest in research and facilitation of 
management
7. Public comment
8. Council/IPHC discussion of all agenda items

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be 
posted at http://www.npfmc.org. Background documents, reports, and 
analyses for review are posted on the Council Web site in advance of 
the meeting.

Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with 
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at 
least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: January 13, 2015.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-00610 Filed 1-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
#### Mitchel CALVERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alice PAYNE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-36101.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Sept. 11, 2006.

Filed Oct. 5, 2006.

Mitchel Calvert, Steilacoom, WA, pro se.

Tracy Staab, Spokane, WA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

John J. Samson, Esq., Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Circuit Judge, KLEINFELD and BEA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Mitchel Calvert appeals an order of the district court dismissing his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review *de novo*the district court’s dismissal of Calvert’s habeas petition, *Malcom v. Payne,*281 F.3d 951, 955-56 (9th Cir.2002), and affirm.

Calvert challenges his 2002 conviction for three counts of child rape. The Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act *76of 1996 (“AEDPA”) establishes a one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Section 2244(d)(2) provides a tolling period for “[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending....” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Absent tolling, Calvert’s petition was untimely. While Calvert claims his motion to file untimely notice of appeal tolled the statute of limitations, the Washington courts dismissed Calvert’s petition as untimely, and therefore it was not “properly filed” under AEDPA. *Pace v. DiGuglielmo,*544 U.S. 408, 413, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005); *Bonner v. Carey,*425 F.3d 1145, 1148-49 (9th Cir.2005).

AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations “may be equitably tolled if extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control make it impossible to file a petition on time.” *Spitsyn v. Moore,*345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir.2003) (internal punctuation and citation omitted); *see also Pace,*544 U.S. at 418, 125 S.Ct. 1807. The record does not demonstrate that Calvert’s failure to file a timely habeas petition was due to extraordinary circumstances beyond his control. We find Calvert has failed to establish that equitable tolling of the statute of limitations was warranted in his case.

The district court properly dismissed Calvert’s § 2254 petition as untimely.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
664 A.2d 493

#### IN THE MATTER OF PERRY FEINBERG, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 25, 1995.

ORDER

The Office of Attorney Ethics having filed a petition with the Supreme Court recommending that PERRY FEINBERG of POINT PLEASANT, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1983, and for whose practice an attorney-trustee has been appointed be immediately temporarily suspended from the practice of law, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that PERRY FEINBERG is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that PERRY FEINBERG show cause before this Court on October 11, 1995, at 2:00 p.m., Supreme Court courtroom, Hughes Justice Complex, Trenton, New Jersey, why his temporary suspension should not continue pending final disposition of any ethics proceedings pending against him; and it is further

ORDERED that David E. Johnson, Jr., Esquire, or his designee, present this matter to the Court.
[972 NYS2d 890]

#### In the Matter of Jason S. Ciccone, an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

October 8, 2013

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee,*New York City *(Kathy Wu*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Jason S. Ciccone,*respondent pro se.

*116OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Jason S. Ciccone was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on September 3, 2008. At all times relevant to the proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (Committee) seeks an order, pursuant to Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 603.4 (e) (1) (i), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law until further order of this Court due to his failure to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation of professional misconduct which threatens the public interest. The Committee seeks respondent’s immediate suspension based on his willful failure to respond to the Committee’s numerous letters and a judicial subpoena issued as part of the Committee’s investigation into third-party funds purportedly deposited into respondent’s escrow account. Respondent, although served via first-class and certified mail return receipt requested to his Madison Avenue address, has failed to submit a response.

Although having spoken to a Committee legal assistant on the telephone on January 23, 2013 and aware of the Committee’s investigation, respondent has nonetheless failed to appear in the proceeding. Not only has he failed to answer the complaint, he failed to appear pursuant to a judicial subpoena and has defaulted on this motion seeking his immediate suspension. We have consistently held that such conduct demonstrates a willful noncompliance with the Committee’s investigation that threatens the public interest and warrants an immediate suspension from the practice of law *(see Matter of Gadsden,*103 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2012]; *Matter of Bruzdziak,*102 AD3d 193 [1st Dept 2012]). In addition, respondent’s failure to keep his attorney registration current serves as an independent ground for suspension *(see Matter of Benzing,*43 AD3d 163 [1st Dept 2007]).

Accordingly, the Committee’s motion should be granted, and respondent should be suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i), and until further order of this Court.

Renwick, J.P., DeGrasse, Freedman, Richter and ManzanetDaniels, JJ., concur.

*117Respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof, until such time as disciplinary matters pending before the Committee have been concluded and until further order of this Court.
##### 



FORM 6-K SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 Report of Foreign Private Issuer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the month of June 2005 Commission File Number 1-14916 BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES CORPORATION  BCE Place
181 Bay Street
Suite 330
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5J 2T3
(416) 369-2300
(Address of principal executive offices) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form
20-F or Form 40-F. Form 20-F o     Form 40-F þ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ___ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ___ Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this Form, the registrant
is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Yes o     No þ If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with
Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ___




---



##### 



DOCUMENTS FILED AS PART OF THIS FORM 6-K See the Exhibit Index to this Form 6-K. SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. Date: June 1, 2005. Brookfield Properties CorporationBy:

/s/
Craig J. LaurieName:
    Craig J. LaurieTitle:
    Senior Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit
    
    Description99.1
    
    
    Brookfield Properties Corporation Press Release dated June 1, 2005
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Tellabs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Krish A. Prabhu, the Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 
| *** ******/s/ Krish Prabhu*** | *** *** |
|------------------------------------|--------------|
|   Krish Prabhu                |
|   Chief  Executive Officer    |
|   Date: August  8, 2006       |

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2477 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2477

To amend the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 to permit qualified law 
 enforcement officers, qualified retired law enforcement officers, and 
 persons not prohibited by State law from carrying a concealed firearm 
 to carry a firearm, and to discharge a firearm in defense of self or 
                       others, in a school zone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2023

Mr. Weber of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 to permit qualified law 
 enforcement officers, qualified retired law enforcement officers, and 
 persons not prohibited by State law from carrying a concealed firearm 
 to carry a firearm, and to discharge a firearm in defense of self or 
                       others, in a school zone.

    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 ``Protect Against School Shootings 
Act'' or the ``PASS Act''.

SEC. 2. USE OF FIREARMS IN SCHOOL ZONES BY QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT 
              OFFICERS, QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, AND 
              PERSONS NOT PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW FROM CARRYING A 
              CONCEALED FIREARM.

    Section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(B)--
                    (A) in clause (vi), by striking ``or'' at the end;
                    (B) in clause (vii), by striking the period at the 
                end and inserting ``; or''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(viii) by a person who, under section 926B or 926C or the 
        law of a State, may carry a concealed firearm.''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3)(B)--
                    (A) in clause (iii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
                    (B) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the 
                end and inserting ``; or''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(v) by a person who, under section 926B or 926C or the 
        law of a State, may carry a concealed firearm.''.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 11, 2021. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 11, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21D0341. IN THE INTEREST OF J. D. et al., CHILDREN (FATHER).
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2100068 2100070 2100069
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS**
**AUSTIN**

fionorableFixnk D. c;uipn Brsoutlr6 Ssqretary~ Texas State Parks tjeard Austin, Texas ..,



### Dear Sir:

authority. be ~ecure~?~ 

### iYe havebeen unable to find any legielativs6Ct authorizing the Texas state Farit, Roard to lease any State 

### ~i'ark for oil end @OS. It Is B well settled rule 

### thatpublicI 

### officersand 

### odminlstratlveacd 

### governmentalboardspoeeeee

onlyeuah powers as are expreselyoonferredupon them by law or am n4c4esarllp Implied from 

### the powers eo conisrred. 34 Tex. JUC. 440.

The Texas 

### State Farks Board la aa agenoy of the state an4 la authorized to so~loit~donatlon to ~tho State 

### or traoto 

### of ,landto be usd by the State ror the purpoes or gubllo parks and/or reoreatfon areas. 

### tmtiole 6068V.A.C.;. iiothing in, the dot oreat.1~ suoh Board expressly authorizes it to exeoute 0~11 and gas leases, end suoh power oan not be implied 

### from ita pouere expreesly granted to Weoll~ft donation to 

### the State of tracts of land

. . . to 

### be used by tha 

### .'itat.e

for the purpose of publia parka 

### and/or reoreation 

### areae c

. . . . $4 anewer your flrret queatlo:~,nb.

Se have 

### beenable to find 

### only twoActs of the I.e~ielafure

### authorizingany agenop of the State to execute 011and gas leaees..upon State Fark lands. F1r:s.t. Bouae El11 Yo. 711,Ch, 198,p. 430, ActaR. S. of the rllst Legislature, 1929, (Art. !!WlbV. A. C. 5;) authorizes the 

### 'Commlisslonsr of theGeneral L&d Office to lease all jmbllc lands l'yin,&be

### neathor adjacentto thewaters of Caddo Lake for rafnerelpurp0tWJ5.Cad&o Lake is a'Stat F8rk ud0T 

### your Jurladlctlon.

SeCOUd, SeWit S1iiplO. 84, Ch. 32, p. 55, AOtg of ' 

### t.%e 41atLe&latare, Fourth Called Seaslon, 

### 1950 (Article 3lS& V. A. C. S.) oreatad'a board and authorleed ,it.tolease lands of 

### themite whloh were owned or held 6% Stete~Eleemosynary and State ?.?emorlal Fark rends. The Tetia State,iarka 

### T,@ard doee not have Jurlmdlatlon over Memorlsl Fark?.


### In.anewerto your rroond question, 15 the sbrenoo 

### of any exp?esr le&ielative euthorlty, exoeptwith rererenae to Caddo Lake State Parkk, we do not believe any Sta$e agaaoy &s nutborlty to lean4 any other State i'arkunder goui Juri8- dlctloa tar oil and gee purpoae6, and that lvwill take an act or the Legislature to confer such authority.



### Truetingthat the above fully 

### enmere your questlona, .=a2 

### 6x-e
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Building Control, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Chris Sharng,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

This Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Chris Sharng

Chris Sharng
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003
|   | 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 operation of the                Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                 November 19, 2008   | By:    | /s/                William M. Lynes                                                                                                         |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |   | William                M. LynesChief                Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board(Principal                Executive Officer) |

----
#### In the Matter of Donald Campbell, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 459]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Zwack, J.), entered February 14, 2012 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denying his grievance.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, filed a grievance alleging that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision unfairly treats inmates with driving while intoxicated convictions differently than other inmates seeking to participate in temporary release programs. His grievance was ultimately denied by the Central Office Review Committee. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging that denial and Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

This Court has been informed by the Attorney General that, since this appeal has been taken, petitioner has withdrawn his name from consideration for the work release program and, in any event, would have been eligible for such consideration because he is now within nine months of his reappearance date. “Inasmuch as petitioner is no longer aggrieved by the administrative action that was the subject of his grievance, his appeal must be dismissed as moot” *(Matter of Patel v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*84 AD3d 1668, 1669 [2011] [citations omitted]). Consequently, to the extent that petitioner raised a constitutional challenge, it cannot be addressed given the absence of a justiciable controversy *(see Matter of Justice v Fischer,*74 AD3d 1648, 1649 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 710 [2010]).

*1223Mercure, J.P., Rose, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
<PAGE>


                                                                 EXHIBIT 15.1


April 30, 2001


The Board of Directors and Stockholders of Genentech, Inc.

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
pertaining to the Genentech, Inc. Tax Reduction Investment Plan, the 1999
Stock Plan, the 1996 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, the 1994 Stock Option
Plan, the 1990 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, and the 1991 Employee Stock
Plan and in the related prospectuses, as applicable, contained in such
Registration Statements of our report dated April 10, 2001 relating to the
unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of Genentech,
Inc. which are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2001.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 our report is not a
part of the registration statement prepared or certified by accountants
within the meaning of section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.


Very truly yours,




/s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
--------------------------
   Ernst & Young LLP