alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15788]



[[Page 31967]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and 
Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; Community Assessment 
Rehabilitation Experiment (CARE).
    Date: July 28, 2009.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Room 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 
5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, (301) 435-6680, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a49515b545e5b495b7a575b535614545352145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0c7f676d62686d7f6d4c616d656022626564226b637a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 29, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-15788 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


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

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10972

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Carlos Jones, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:23-CR-109-1

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Carlos Jones appeals his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. He

argues that the factual basis for his plea was insufficient to demonstrate that 

his conduct constituted a drug conspiracy offense. We review the forfeited 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 14, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10972 Document: 53-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2024
No. 23-10972

2

objection for plain error. See United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 313 (5th 

Cir. 2010). 

According to Jones, the record did not establish his agreement to 

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and even if we assumed 

that it did, the record did not reflect that the conspiracy involved 50 grams or 

more of methamphetamine or his knowledge of that quantity. Jones also 

claims there was no evidence regarding the frequency of his sales or the 

individuals to whom he distributed methamphetamine. However, for 

purposes of the guilty plea, there was no requirement of any of these 

elements. See United States v. Jones, 969 F.3d 192, 196 (5th Cir. 2020); 

United States v. Daniels, 723 F.3d 562, 572-74 (5th Cir.), modified in part on 

reh’g, 729 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 

308-09 (5th Cir. 2009).

The entirety of the record supports a reasonable inference of an 

agreement among, at the very least, Jones, an unindicted coconspirator, and 

a supply source to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. See 

Jones, 969 F.3d at 196; United States v. Patino-Prado, 533 F.3d 304, 309 (5th 

Cir. 2008); Trejo, 610 F.3d at 317. That evidence is bolstered by Jones’s own 

admission to investigators that he purchased methamphetamine and 

regularly distributed it. He thus fails to show error, plain or otherwise, 

concerning the factual basis. See Trejo, 610 F.3d at 313.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-10972 Document: 53-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2024
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

August 13, 2007

U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission100 F Street, N. E.Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The certification set forth below is being submittedto the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complyingwith Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode. This certification is not to be deemed to be filed pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) accompanying this letter and isnot to be incorporated by reference into any filing, whether made before orafter the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in suchfiling.

I, J. WilliamHolden, III, the Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer of Mirant North America, LLC (the “Company”), certify that,subject to the qualifications noted below, to the best of my knowledge:

1.                the Report fully complieswith 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 Mirant North America, LLC.
| Name:    | /s/ J. WILLIAM  HOLDEN, III                           |   |
|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|     | J. William Holden, III                                |
| * * | *Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer  and Treasurer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Mirant North America, LLCand will be retained by Mirant North America, LLC and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC

Appellate case name: Chris Wilmot v. Harry A. Bouknight, Junior

Appellate case number: 01-13-00738-CV

Trial court case number: 2010-00373

Trial court: 295th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: April 17, 2015

Party filing motion: Appellant, Chris Wilmot

It is ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ __Evelyn V. Keyes________________________________ 

 Acting for the Court

The en banc court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, 

Massengale, Brown, Huddle, and Lloyd.

Justices Massengale and Brown voted to grant en banc reconsideration.

Date: July 28, 2015
#### ALBERT DAHLQUIST v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY.1

February 10, 1950.

No. 35,023.

*Brenner & Bouchard,*for appellant.

*202*O. W. Wright, John G. DeMar, Richard Musenbroclc,-*and *William J. Powell,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 41 N. W. (2d) 586.

Per Curiam.

Action for personal injuries and for damage to plaintiff’s truck resulting from a collision between his 1935 Ford pickup and one of defendant’s locomotives. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed from an order granting defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, made in response to an alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.

We are confronted at the threshold of consideration of this case by the fact that the settled case does not disclose a motion to direct a verdict in favor of defendant at the close of all the evidence offered. The fact that defendant, at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, moved for a directed verdict does not satisfy the statute which authorizes the alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. M. S. A. 605.06. The identical question was presented to this court in the case of Callahan v. City of Duluth, 197 Minn. 403, 267 N. W. 361.

The court, although the motion for new trial was not before it unless it denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, denied the motion for a new trial. That part of the court’s order denying a new trial is vacated. Kies v. Searles, 146 Minn. 359, 178 N. W. 811; Rieke v. St. Albans Land Co. 180 Minn. 540, 231 N. W. 222; Central Metropolitan Bank v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 159 Minn. 28, 198 N. W. 137; Parker v. Fryberger, 165 Minn. 374, 206 N. W. 716.

The order granting defendant judgment notwithstanding the verdict therefore must be reversed.

Reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16373]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Sunshine Act Meeting

Board Votes To Close July 15, 2009, Meeting

    At its closed session meeting on June 23, 2009, the Board of 
Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to 
close to public observation its meeting to be held on July 15, 2009, in 
Washington, DC via teleconference. The Board determined that no earlier 
public notice was possible.

Items Considered: 
    1. Financial Matters.
    2. Strategic Issues.
    3. Pricing.
    4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.
    5. Governors' Executive Session--discussion of prior agenda items 
and Board Governance.

General Counsel Certification: The General Counsel of the United States 
Postal Service has certified that the meeting is properly closed under 
the Government in the Sunshine Act.

Contact Person For More Information: Requests for information about the 
meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. 
Moore, at (202) 268-4800.

Julie S. Moore,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16373 Filed 7-7-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12- P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    The                     **Federal Register**                     notices published on May 1, 2009 (74 FR 20320) and July 1, 2009 (74 FR 31445) announcing the submission to OMB of the project titled, “Collection of Customer Service, Demographic, and Smoking/Tobacco Use Information from NCI Cancer Information Service (CIS) Clients (NCI)” was submitted with errors. The “                    *Type of Information Collection Request”*                     was incorrectly listed as a revision. This submission should be considered an extension. Additionally, the total annual burden hours was reported as 2,524 hours.                           ( print page 31964)                        Instead, the estimated total annual burden is 2,492 hours.                

Dated: July 1, 2009.

Vivian Horovitch-Kelley,

NCI Project Clearance Liaison, National Institutes of Health.

[FR Doc. E9-15955 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Erma WILBUR, Plaintiff, v. Martin F. ARKUSZEWSKI et al., Defendants. David W. WILBUR, Plaintiff, v. Martin F. ARKUSZEWSKI et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. Nos. 2462, 2463.

United States District Court, E. D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division.

Dec. 18, 1970.

*292William W. Hawkins, and Shelby W. Smoot, Kingsport, Tenn., for plaintiffs.

Dick L. Johnson, Johnson City, Tenn., for defendant, Martin F. Arkuszewski.

Frank K. Moore, and Richard Hopson, Kingsport, Tenn., for defendant, C. B. Lester, d/b/a City Hall Shell Service Station.

No appearance for defendant, Frank H. Lane.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERS

NEESE, District Judge.

These are diversity actions for unliquidated damages for personal injuries involving common questions of law and fact. They hereby are consolidated for purposes of trial. Rule 42(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Stemler v. Burke, C.A.6th (1965), 344 F.2d 393, 396[2].

At the request of the respective plaintiffs, the clerk properly entered the default of the defendant Mr. Frank H. Lane for his failure to plead or otherwise defend, Rule 55(b) (1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Proper application having been made, and it appearing by affidavit that the defendant Mr. Lane is not an infant, an incompetent, or in the military service, the Court hereby ADJUDGES that such defendant is in default, Rule 55(b) (2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It being necessary to determine the amount of damages, a hearing on such question will be conducted coincident with the trial herein, at which Mr. Lane will be in court on such hearing, limited to the amount of damages, to the same extent that he would have been in court in a trial on the merits. Peitzman v. City of Illmo, C.C.A.8th (1944), 141 F.2d 956, 962 [16], certiorari denied (1944), 323 U.S. 718, 65 S.Ct. 47, 89 L.Ed. 577, rehearing denied (1944), 323 U.S. 813, 65 S.Ct. 112, 89 L.Ed. 647.

The motion of the defendant Mr. Arkuszewski for a summary judgment against the plaintiff Mr. Wilbur, on the ground that there is no genuine issue of material fact extant between those parties, Rule 56(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is frivolous and hereby is denied. That defendant claims that at the time and place of the accident herein he and Mr. Wilbur were within the course and scope of their respective employments with Alladin Plastics, Inc. Mr. Wilbur denies this, contending in his discovery deposition that at such time and place these parties had ceased the pursuit of their employment and were enjoying a social evening together. This issue must be decided ultimately by the trier of the facts herein. Atnip v. United States, D.C.Tenn. (1965), 245 F.Supp. 386, 388 [4].
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1124 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1124

 To require the establishment of a working group to evaluate the food 
 safety threat posed by beef and poultry imported from Brazil, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 10, 2019

  Mr. Tester introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the establishment of a working group to evaluate the food 
 safety threat posed by beef and poultry imported from Brazil, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. WORKING GROUP ON BEEF AND POULTRY IMPORTED FROM BRAZIL.

    (a) Establishment of Working Group.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
        the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
        establish a working group--
                    (A) to evaluate the food safety threat posed by 
                beef, beef products, poultry, and poultry products 
                imported from Brazil; and
                    (B) to make recommendations to the Secretary with 
                respect to whether the importation of beef, beef 
                products, poultry, and poultry products from Brazil 
                into the United States should be permitted.
            (2) Membership.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
        working group established under paragraph (1) includes--
                    (A) experts on food safety; and
                    (B) representatives of U.S. Customs and Border 
                Protection and other Federal agencies with 
                responsibilities relating to international trade.
    (b) Temporary Suspension of Imports.--Beef, beef products, poultry, 
and poultry products imported from Brazil may not enter the United 
States during the period--
            (1) beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
            (2) ending on the date on which the working group 
        established under subsection (a)(1) submits to the Secretary 
        the recommendations required by subparagraph (B) of that 
        subsection.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered July 16, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00619-CV

DENNIS JAMES POLEDORE, JR., Appellant

V.

CHERI YLONDA POLEDORE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-14-13701

ORDER

In light of our July 8, 2015 order directing the Clerk of the Court to send appellant a 

paper copy of the clerk’s record and extending the time to file appellant’s brief to August 20, 

2015, we DENY as moot appellant’s “motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief thirty 

(30) days after appellant has been provided his free requested copy of clerk’s record.”

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
# Result 2.2
ESTABLISHMENT DATA ESTABLISHMENT DATA

EARNINGS EARNINGS

NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED

B-17. Average hourly earnings, excluding overtime1 of production employees on manufacturing payrolls

Industry Dec.

2010

Jan.

2011

Nov.

2011

Dec.

2011 p

Jan.

2012 p

Manufacturing ............................................................................. $17.94 $18.13 $18.03 $18.19 $18.29

Durable goods .......................................................................... 19.15 19.29 19.14 19.19 19.28

Wood products ........................................................................ 14.40 14.43 14.14 14.18 2 ( )

Nonmetallic mineral products ............................................... 16.87 17.08 17.31 17.10 2 ( )

Primary metals ........................................................................ 18.90 18.85 18.40 18.69 2 ( )

Fabricated metal products ..................................................... 17.26 17.30 17.26 17.37 2 ( )

Machinery ................................................................................. 18.31 18.50 18.78 18.68 2 ( )

Computer and electronic products ....................................... 22.40 22.86 22.31 22.42 2 ( )

Electrical equipment and appliances ................................... 16.65 16.98 17.14 17.14 2 ( )

Transportation equipment ..................................................... 24.14 24.14 23.66 23.59 2 ( )

Furniture and related products ............................................. 14.53 14.70 15.00 14.88 2 ( )

Miscellaneous manufacturing ............................................... 16.34 16.52 16.20 16.32 2 ( )

Nondurable goods ................................................................... 16.09 16.34 16.25 16.57 16.71

Food manufacturing ............................................................... 13.76 13.92 13.83 13.96 2 ( )

Textile mills .............................................................................. 13.12 13.69 13.00 12.81 2 ( )

Textile product mills ................................................................ 11.44 11.51 11.90 11.97 2 ( )

Apparel ..................................................................................... 11.12 11.58 11.96 12.22 2 ( )

Paper and paper products ..................................................... 18.97 19.22 19.33 19.26 2 ( )

Printing and related support activities ................................. 16.54 16.89 16.82 16.79 2 ( )

Petroleum and coal products ................................................ 29.86 29.95 29.07 28.97 2 ( )

Chemicals ................................................................................ 20.27 20.53 20.34 21.70 2 ( )

Plastics and rubber products ................................................ 15.12 15.36 15.27 15.60 2 ( )

154

1 Derived by assuming that overtime hours are paid at the rate of

time and one-half.

2 Data not available.

p = preliminary.

NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2011 benchmark

levels. Unadjusted data from April 2010 were subject to revision.

See http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesbmart.pdf for additional information.