alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 93 (Friday, May 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22955-22956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11384]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[F-14908-B; F-14908-C; AK-965-1410- KC-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

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

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Sitnasuak Native 
Corporation. The lands are in the vicinity of Nome, Alaska, and are 
located in:

[[Page 22956]]

Kateel River Meridian, Alaska

T. 11 S., R. 32 W.,
    Secs. 6 and 7;
    Secs. 18 and 32.
    Containing 2,317.16 acres.
T. 9 S., R. 33 W.,
    Sec. 35.
    Containing 640 acres.
T. 9 S., R. 34 W.,
    Secs. 29 and 32.
    Containing 1,280 acres.
T. 10 S., R. 34 W.,
    Secs. 5, 8, and 17.
    Containing 1,852.78 acres.
T. 9 S., R. 35 W.,
    Secs. 6, 7, and 18.
    Containing approximately 350 acres.
T. 9 S., R. 36 W.,
    Secs. 12 and 13;
    Secs. 24 and 25.
    Containing approximately 630 acres.
    Aggregating approximately 7,069 acres.

    The subsurface estate in these lands will be conveyed to Bering 
Straits Native Corporation when the surface estate is conveyed to 
Sitnasuak Native Corporation. Notice of the decision will also be 
published four times in the Nome Nugget.

DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
    1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely 
affected by the decision shall have until June 15, 2009 to file an 
appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone 
at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c9a8a2e7aba5a4e7aaa6a7bfacb0a8a7aaac89a8a2e7aba5a4e7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f6e64216d6362216c6061796a766e616c6a4f6e64216d636221686079">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons 
who use a telecommunication device (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.

Eileen Ford,
Land Transfer Resolution Specialist, Land Transfer Adjudication II.
[FR Doc. E9-11384 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 99.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant toSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**

            I, Douglas A. Pertz, the Chief Executive Officer of IMC Global Inc., certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2003 of IMC Global Inc. fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IMC Global Inc.

        Douglas A. Pertz         Douglas A. Pertz

May 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code has been provided to IMC Global Inc. and will be retained by IMC Global Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

*Return to IMC Global Inc. Form 10-Q*
The District Court of the 3rd Judicial District. County of Powell.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. BOBBY JOE LABOUCANE, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-07-24 DECISION

On October 13,2009, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of three (3) years for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence for the offense of Theft, a felony.

On February 4, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Patrick Flaherty. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 4lh day of February, 2010.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2010.

*12Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Alternate Member, Hon. John Warner.
Skip to main content An icon that symbolizes the United States Department of Transportation logo. United States Department of Transportation
        Report a Safety Problem

  Toggle navigation
      National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHomepage

    Ratings
                                Recalls
                                Risky Driving
                                Road Safety
                                Vehicle Safety
      
            More Info

                      Briefing Room
          
                        
            Importing a Vehicle
          
                                      
            
            Data
          
                        
            Research
          
                        
            Laws & Regulations
          
                    
                      Vehicle Manufacturers
                      State Governments
                      Enforcement & Justice Exponent Research Summary


Download file: Exponent Research Summary
 NHTSA Information
              
              About NHTSA
          Careers & Internships
          Contact Us
          Recall Information
          Report a Safety ProblemInformation For
              
              Vehicle Manufacturers
          State Governments
          Enforcement & JusticeNHTSA Sites
              
        SaferCar App
          TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov
          EMS.gov
          911.gov
            Website Information
              
        Web Policies & Notices
          Accessibility
          FOIA
          Privacy Policy
          Information Quality
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
          No Fear Act Data
          Ethics
          Civil Rights
          Office of Inspector General
          OIG Hotline
          BusinessUSA
          USA.gov
          WhiteHouse.gov

            National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
              1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
                Washington, D.C. 20590
              888-327-4236888-275-9171 (TTY)
              Twitter
                LinkedIn
                Facebook
                Youtube
                Instagram
        Submit Feedback >
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Mark A. CAPOZZI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-4057-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 14, 2006.

Susan M. Damplo, Ardsley, NY, for Appellant.

Marc A. Weinstein, Assistant United States Attorney, (Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney, Harry Sandick, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.

PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges and JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Following a jury trial in the District Court, Defendant-Appellant Mark A. Capozzi was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of wire fraud. He was sentenced principally to 37 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution of more than $2.5 million. In short, the charges against Capozzi involved his actions as an intermediary and facilitator in a “Ponzi scheme” masterminded by his co-defendant Carolyn Mintus. Capozzi appeals his conviction and sentence on four grounds: (1) the District Court erred in issuing a “no ultimate harm” jury instruction that could confuse the jury into convicting without finding an intent to defraud; (2) the District Court abused its discretion in denying Capozzi’s motion for a mistrial after learning that Capozzi’s trial lawyer was being paid to represent Capozzi by Mintus; (3) Capozzi’s lawyer during the mistrial hearing provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not designating the trial lawyer as an adverse witness in order to ask more leading questions; and (4) the District Court impermissibly treated the Guidelines sentence as presumptively reasonable.

We assume familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

With respect to the argument that the District Court erred in not granting Ca*997pozzi a mistrial based on his lawyer’s conflict of interest, we see no reason to question the District Court’s findings — made in the course of its careful and comprehensive opinions denying Capozzi’s motions for a mistrial and reconsideration — that the conflict was not a reason why the trial lawyer chose, or did not choose, to pursue certain defense strategies or tactics. *Cf. United States v. Levy,*25 F.3d 146, 158 (2d Cir.1994) (holding that a lawyer’s failure to “shift[ ] primary criminal responsibility” to another individual was a Sixth Amendment violation because there were not “justifiable reasons other than the attorney’s conflicts that better explained why alternative defense strategies were not pursued”).

We have considered all of Capozzi’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the District Court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.36


 


BUILDING LEASE


 


 


This
lease is between Paragon Systems, Inc. and Charles Keathley and Robert Luther,
Joint Owners of the building to be known as Paragon Systems, Inc. Construction
Operations located in Prospect, Tennessee, more specifically on the West side
of Highway US 31 approximately three miles north of US Highway I-65.


 


The
Following Terms apply:


 


The
Lease Term shall be for thirty years.


 


The
Lease Rate shall be Nine Hundred Dollars ($1100.00) each month, payable by the
tenth of the month.


 


Paragon
Systems shall make an initial lease payment of fifteen thousand dollars
($15,000) to secure the best lease terms on the building. This initial payment
shall be appended to the end of the lease. In case Paragon Systems vacates the
premises prior to the end of the initial payment being consumed, that money
shall be refunded to Paragon Systems with any appropriate interest, as deemed
proper by Keathley and Luther jointly.


 


Paragon
Systems shall pay all utilities on the building for the duration of its
occupancy.


 


Paragon
Systems shall pay all insurance on the building for the duration of its
occupancy.


 


Paragon
Systems shall pay all maintenance and normal wear on the building for the
duration of its occupancy.


 


Paragon
Systems shall exercise due care and diligence to protect the property at all
times from any hazards.


 


Paragon
Systems shall have the right to erect fences and other structures as required
for the normal business operations it shall conduct on the premises.


 


Paragon
Systems holds Charles Keathley and Robert Luther harmless from any claims or
damages that may accrue through any operations that it pursues, whether on the
property or otherwise.


 


Paragon
Systems shall not make building alterations unless agreed to by Charles
Keathley and Robert Luther. Alteration agreements shall be in the form of an
amendment to this lease and may, if warranted, incur additional lease costs.


 


1

















 


Paragon
Systems shall not engage in any hazardous materials operations that are
prohibited by law and may constitute liability to either Keathley or Luther.


 


This
lease is contained in its entirety on this document. It shall be open to
renegotiation at any time the parties agree it is warranted.


 


Signed
this Day and Date indicated Below:


 


 


	
  /s/ Charles
  Keathley

  	
   

  	
  June 29,
  1996

  
	
  President

  	
   

  
	
  Paragon Systems, Inc.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Charles Keathley

  	
   

  	
  June
  29, 1996

  
	
  Charles Keathley, Co-Owner

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Robert N. Luther

  	
   

  	
  June
  29, 1996

  
	
  Robert N. Luther, Co-Owner

  	
   

  



 


2
#### Aurora Loan Services, Respondent, v Philip Grant, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Submitted May 24, 2010;

decided July 1, 2010

*767Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank KAMA (07-2556), Michael Anderson (07-2557), Roni Shaba (08-1513), Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 07-2556, 07-2557, 08-1513.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 20, 2009.

*415Before: SILER, GILMAN, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge.

Defendants Michael Anderson, Frank Kama, and Roni Shaba appeal their sentences for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute methylenedioxymethampheta-mine pills (MDMA), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We affirm.

I.

Anderson and Kama pled guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 1,300 pills of MDMA, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The district court calculated their base-offense levels based on the total weight of the pills, pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1, Note B. That calculation ultimately yielded a Guidelines range of 57-71 months for Anderson and 63-78 months for Kama. The district court thereafter sentenced Anderson to 57 months’ imprisonment, and Kama to 48 months’ imprisonment.

Shaba pled guilty to involvement in a separate conspiracy, which arose from his sale of 3,100 MDMA pills. The total weight of the pills was unknown, so the district court calculated Shaba’s base-offense level based on the “typical weight” for each pill under § 2D1.1, Note 11. The district court then sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment, which was within his Guidelines range of 51-63 months.

These consolidated appeals followed.

II.

We review a district court’s factual findings in sentencing a defendant for clear error, *United States v. Hazelwood,*398 F.3d 792, 795 (6th Cir.2005), and its application and interpretation of the Guidelines *de novo. United States v. Cousins,*469 F.3d 572, 575 (6th Cir.2006).

Defendants contend that, in calculating their base-offense level, the district court should have considered only the weight of the “pure” MDMA itself, rather than the weight of the entire pill. This argument is plainly foreclosed by precedent. “This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that only the ‘pure’ weight of a controlled substance should be used as the basis for calculating a defendant’s base offense level instead of the weight of the entire pill.” *United States v. Jeross,*521 F.3d 562, 577 (6th Cir.2008). To the contrary, “a defendant’s base-offense level is to be determined by the *entire*weight of the pill containing the controlled substance, and not by the weight of the actual controlled substance alone (i.e., the weight of the pure MDA, MDMA, or meth con*416tained in the pill).” *Id.*(emphasis in original).

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 15**

To the Shareholders and Board of Directorsof Sears, Roebuck and Co.
We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by theAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interimcondensed consolidated financial information of Sears, Roebuck and Co.for the 13-week and 26-week periods ended July 1, 2000 and July 3, 1999,as indicated in our report dated August 2, 2000; because we did not performan audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.
We are aware that our report referred to above, whichis included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the 13-week periodended July 1, 2000, is incorporated by reference in Registration StatementNos. 2-64879, 2-80037, 33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479,33-55825, 33-58851, 33-64345, 333-8141, and 333-38131 of Sears, Roebuckand Co.; Registration Statement Nos. 33-58139, 333-9817, 33-64215, 333-30879,and 333-62847 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp.;Registration Statement Nos. 33-64775, 333-18591, and 333-43309 of Sears,Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Deferred Compensation Plan;Registration Statement Nos. 33-57205, 333-11973, 333-53149, and 333-92501of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the Sears 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (formerly,The Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees); and RegistrationStatement No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears DC Corp.
We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuantto Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a partof the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant ora report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections7 and 11 of that Act.  
/s/Deloitte & Touche LLPChicago, IllinoisAugust 2, 2000
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Chatham, Appellant.

Submitted December 14, 2009;

decided January 12, 2010

Reported below, 55 AD3d 1045.

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Deotexis
Inc. financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,034,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,036,261
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,036,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          223,884
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,547
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,807,830
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,036,261
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,753
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               278,654
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (239,901)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (239,901)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (239,901)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2  SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the Annual Report of International Barrier Technology Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Corcoran, 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, to my knowledge:  (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ David Corcoran David Corcoran CFO/Director October 06, 2006