alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 116 (Thursday, June 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14304]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the 
Materials, Metallurgy, and Reactor Fuels Subcommittee; Notice of 
Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on the Materials, Metallurgy and Reactor 
Fuels will hold a meeting on July 7, 2009, 11545 Rockville Pike, Room 
T2-B3, Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda 
for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Tuesday, July 7, 2009--1:30 p.m.-5 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will discuss the technical approach and 
programmatic justification for the Materials and Metallurgy research 
projects, sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. The 
Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with 
representatives of the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding 
this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant 
issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Christopher Brown (Telephone: 301-415-7111) five days prior to the 
meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. 
Electronic recordings will be permitted. Detailed procedures for the 
conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the 
Federal Register on October 6, 2008 (73 FR 58268-58269).
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 6:45 a.m. and 3:30 
p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact 
the above named individual at least two working days prior to the 
meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

    Dated: June 12, 2009.
Cayetano Santos,
Chief, Reactor Safety Branch A, Advisory Committee on Reactor 
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E9-14304 Filed 6-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2007 of Blue Ridge Real Estate Company and Big Boulder Corporation (together , the Registrants) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Eldon D. Dietterick, Executive Vice President and Treasurer (chief financial officer) of the Registrants, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:  (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or Section 78o(d); and  (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrants.    /s/ Eldon D. Dietterick Eldon D. Dietterick Executive Vice President and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer) January 28, 2008
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 213 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Women Veterans Recognition 

Week. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2019 

Mr. LAWSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. POSEY, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, 

Mr. WALTZ, Mr. MAST, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. DUNN, Mr. RUTHERFORD, Mr. 

SPANO, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mrs. MURPHY, Mr. DEUTCH, and Mr. SOTO) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Women Veterans 

Recognition Week. 

Whereas approximately 2,000,000 women in the United 

States are veterans; 

Whereas Florida has the second largest population of women 

veterans in the country; 

Whereas in 1943, Congress introduced and passed legislation 

to establish the Women’s Army Corps, which provided 

full military status to women; 

Whereas in 1967, the Women’s Armed Services Integration 

Act was amended to lift restrictions on the number and 

ranks of women in the military; 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 213 IH 

Whereas women are now the fastest growing segment of the 

veteran community; 

Whereas women veterans have served in every branch of the 

military and in various roles including gunners, police, pilots, truck drivers, and fuel suppliers; 

Whereas women bring a unique skill set and perspective to 

military service; 

Whereas women veterans have selflessly and courageously 

served their country; 

Whereas women veterans deserve to be recognized for their 

incredible sacrifices and service; and 

Whereas March 10, 2019, through March 16, 2019, would be 

an appropriate week to recognize as National Women 

Veterans Recognition Week: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the goals and ideals of National Women Veterans Recogni3 tion Week. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Gilonda Kingambo MUFULU, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES; Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, Respondents.

No. 05-2018.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 15, 2006.

Filed June 15, 2006.

*254Ann T. Field, Cozen *&*O’Connor, Ayodele Gansallo, Hias *&*Council Migration Service of Philadelphia, Joseph C. Hohenstein, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.

Douglas E. Ginsburg, John M. McAdams, Jr., United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Before:: FISHER, CHAGARES and REAVLEY,* Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FISHER, Circuit Judge.

The mistake in this case is clear: the Board of Immigration Appeals reviewed the wrong order. An order of removal was initially entered against the alien in April 2002, based on his failure to appear at a scheduled hearing. (A. 22-26; A.R. 107-09.) However, the order was subsequently rescinded when the immigration judge determined that the alien had not been given notice of the proceeding. (A.28-30, 43, 45.) A second hearing was held in September 2002, at which the alien appeared, and a new order of removal was entered based on the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination. (A.46-51.) The alien then appealed from that order. (A.R.102.) Unfortunately, the Board assumed that the order under review was the rescinded one, issued in April 2002. (A. 89; A.R. 2.) It affirmed based on the alien’s failure to appear, without addressing the adverse credibility determination on which the final order of removal, entered in September 2002, was based. (A. 89; A.R. 2, 102.) The alien now petitions for review.

We cannot affirm a decision of the Board on grounds other than those on which it relied. *See, e.g., Li v. Attorney General,*400 F.3d 157, 163 (3d Cir.2005). Since the Board failed to address the merits of the final order of removal, we are precluded from doing so. We will grant the petition for review and remand this case to the Board so that it may consider the order issued in September 2002.
#### Kyle Navarra, an Infant, by His Parents and Natural Guardians, Debbie Navarra and Another, et al., Appellants, v Four Winds Hospital-Westchester, Respondent.

Submitted June 4, 2012;

decided June 28, 2012

*954Motion 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.
October 30, 2014

Mr. Jeff Kyle,

I have taken a job with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and can no longer represent private 

clients. I made sure Michael Ray Chandler received a copy of the Third Court’s opinion as well as a letter 

explaining that I was no longer Mr. Chandler’s attorney and that he had thirty days in which to file a PDR 

if he chose to file one as well as the mailing address of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Thank you.

Michael Mark
QUEST PRODUCTS CORPORATION

                                  Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the quarterly report of Quest Products Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Burton
A. Goldstein, CEO 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:

      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/ Burton A. Goldstein
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Burton A. Goldstein
                                                  Chief Executive Officer

                                                  August 12, 2003
Exhibit32.1

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

Inconnection with the annual report of Broadband Wireless InternationalCorporation, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal yearended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), I, Dr. Ronald B. Tripp, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

           A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature thatappears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retainedby the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

 

 

Date: August 19, 2003                  By:  /s/ Dr. Ronald B. Tripp

                                                                       Dr. Ronald B. Tripp

                                                                       Chief Finacial Officer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                       BANKERS TRUST NEW YORK CORPORATION
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                                DECEMBER 31, 1997

                Subsidiary(1)                         State of Incorporation
                -------------                         ----------------------
            Bankers Trust Company                            New York
            BT Alex. Brown Holdings Incorporated             Delaware
            BT Holdings (NY) Inc.                            New York
            Bankers Trust (Delaware)                         Delaware
            BT (Pacific) Delaware                            Delaware

All other subsidiaries of the Corporation, in the aggregate, would not
constitute a significant subsidiary, as defined.

(1) Subsidiaries' names listed hereon are names under which such subsidiaries
    do business.


               BANKERS TRUST NEW YORK CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
               ---------------------------------------------------
                                      109
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000851724
<NAME> GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II-G
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,074,582
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  939,692
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,014,274
<PP&E>                                      28,167,095
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,930,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,406,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          152,445
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,197,094
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,406,451
<SALES>                                      1,536,333
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,543,765
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,787,791
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,244,126)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,244,126)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,244,126)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-4001

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Brian R. Shafer, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 7, 2006 Filed: April 18, 2006

___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Brian R. Shafer (Shafer) appeals his conviction and sentence entered by the district court 1 upon his guilty plea to being a fel on in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing Shafer’s guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because during the plea colloquy, Shafer was under the influence of prescription drugs. In a pro se supplemental brief, Shafer appears to join counsel in-2- arguing the prescription drugs compromised his ability to plead guilty voluntarily, and argues additionally (1) his trial counsel and the government conspired against him in sharing trial information, (2) prosecutori al misconduct occurred during discovery, (3) he was wrongly charged and c onvicted, and (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
First, the attack on the voluntariness of Shafer’s plea is not properly before us, because he failed to first raise the issue in the district court by seeking to withdraw his guilty plea; rather, at sentencing Shafer affirmatively represented he wished to maintain his plea. See United States v. Murphy , 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1990) (claim of involuntary guilty plea “first must be presented to the district court and [is] not cognizable on direct appeal”). Second, Shafer’s guilty plea forecloses all pre-plea non-jurisdictional attacks on his conviction, including prosecutorial misconduct. See United States v. Beck , 250 F.3d 1163, 1166 (8th Cir. 2001). Third, we find nothing in the record to indicate Shafer was wrongl y charged or convicted. Finally, Shafer’s ineffective-assistance claim is not properly be fore us either, as ineffective-assistance claims generally must be raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings before the district court where the record can be properly developed. SeeUnited States v. Hughes , 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 207 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 207

 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Oversight and 
             Reform in the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 2019

Mr. Cummings submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Oversight and 
             Reform in the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Oversight and Reform 
(hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), 
including the expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out 
of the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for 
committee salaries and expenses, not more than $19,939,573 for the One 
Hundred Sixteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $9,495,035 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2019, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2020; and
            (2) not more than $10,444,538 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2020, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2021.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit
        99.2**
 
 
 CERTIFICATE
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report (the “Quarterly Report”) on the Form
        10-QSBA of Loma Verde Inc. (the “Loma”) for the six months ended March 31, 2006,
        as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
        I,
        Peter Hill, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
        belief:
 
 1.
        The
        Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
        15
        (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.
        The
        information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Loma.
 
 
 
 October
        18, 2006
 
  PETER
        HILL
 Peter
        Hill
 Chief
        Executive Officer,
 President
        and Director
 
 
 -1-
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 1, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00273

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.M.E AND E.D.E. , Children

From the 45th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020PA02152

Honorable Tina Torres , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant has filed a motion for a fourteen

- day extension of time to file a brief. We

grant the motion and order appellant’s brief filed not later than August 8, 2022

.

This is an accelera ted appeal of an order in a suit for termination of the parent

- child

relationship that must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of

appeal was filed in the trial court. See T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2. Because of the time constraints

governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for extensions of time will be

disfavored.

It is so ORDER ED on August 1, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

______________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
97-138.

#### Davis v. Columbus State Community College.

Franklin App. No. 96APB09-1264. On motion to expedite. Motion denied.
#### Echostar Satellite L.L.C., Appellant, v ESPN, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 13, 2013;

decided August 27, 2013

Motion 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. The order affirming the denial of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and affirming the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict resolves the issues raised on those motions; it does not dispose of all of the issues in the action *(see*CPLR 5611). The final and appealable paper to the Court of Appeals is the final judgment entered after the denial of the motions, or an Appellate Division order resolving an appeal from that judgment *(see Anderson v Young & Rubicam,*14 NY3d 909 [2010]; *Butler v New York City Tr. Auth.,*14 NY3d 909 [2010]).