alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1583]



[[Page 4457]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AA-10384, AA-10426, AA-9481, AA-9485, AA-10312, AA-10377, AA-10376, 
AA-10365, AK-962-1410-HY-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 Calista 
Corporation for lands located in the vicinity of Platinum, Alaska. 
Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the 
Anchorage Daily News.

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 February 25, 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#c2a3a9eca0aeafeca1adacb4a7bba3aca1a782a3a9eca0aeafeca5adb4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e0f05400c0203400d0100180b170f000d0b2e0f05400c020340090118">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons 
who use a telecommunication device (TTD) 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.

Judy A. Kelley,
Land Law Examiner, Resolution Branch (962).
 [FR Doc. E9-1583 Filed 1-23-09; 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>
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 28
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF

                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF

                           NATIONAL DATACOMPUTER, INC.

         NATIONAL DATACOMPUTER, INC., a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the  General  Corporation  Law of the  State of  Delaware  (the
"Corporation"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         FIRST:  That at a meeting on July 25, 1996, all of the directors and at
         a meeting  on  October  4, 1996,  a  majority  of the  stockholders  of
         NATIONAL  DATACOMPUTER,  INC. adopted the following resolution amending
         of the Certificate of Incorporation of said Corporation.

         RESOLVED:         That the first  paragraph  of  Article  FOURTH of the
                           Company's Certificate of Incorporation be, and hereby
                           is, deleted in its entirety and the following be, and
                           hereby is, inserted in place thereof:

                                    "FOURTH:  The total  number of shares of all
                           classes  of stock  which the  Corporation  shall have
                           authority to issue is twenty  million fifty  thousand
                           (20,050,000),  of which twenty  million  (20,000,000)
                           shares  are to be Common  Stock,  of the par value of
                           two cents ($.02) each,  and fifty  thousand  (50,000)
                           shares are to be Preferred Stock, of the par value of
                           one tenth of one cent ($.001)  each,  of which twenty
                           (20)  shares  have  been   designated   as  Series  A
                           Convertible  Preferred Stock, of the par value of one
                           tenth of one cent ($.001) each, and four thousand two
                           hundred (4,200) shares have been designated as Series
                           B Convertible  Preferred  Stock,  of the par value of
                           one tenth of one cent ($.001) each,  amounting in the
                           aggregate to Four Hundred  Thousand  Fifty and 00/100
                           Dollars ($400,050.00)."


         SECOND:  That said  amendment was duly adopted in  accordance  with the
         provisions of Section 242 of the General  Corporation  Law of the State
         of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said NATIONAL DATACOMPUTER, INC. has caused its
corporate  seal to be hereunto  affixed and this  Certificate of Amendment to be
signed by its President and Secretary this 13th day of December, 1996.


                                        NATIONAL DATACOMPUTER, INC.


                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Malcolm M. Bibby, Ph.D., President

----------------------------------
Malcolm M. Bibby, Ph.D., Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1196 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1196

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1715 Linnerud Drive in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, as the ``Fire Captain 
                   Cory Barr Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. FIRE CAPTAIN CORY BARR POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1715 Linnerud Drive in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Fire Captain Cory Barr Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Fire 
Captain Cory Barr Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate July 30, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1196

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1715 Linnerud Drive in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, as the ``Fire Captain 
                   Cory Barr Post Office Building''.
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JAMES EDWARD MATHIS, )

DOC #474031, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2230

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed March 20, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Kimberly K. 

Fernandez, Judge.

James Edward Mathis, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and SMITH, Concur.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40720

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RANDALL THOMAS CLARK; GINGER LYNN EGAN; STEVE MARTIN

Defendants-Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-103-3

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ginger Lynn Egan has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Egan has not filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow

consideration atthis time of any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United

States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Our independent review of the

record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 13, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 05-40720

2

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 657 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require all transcripts 

and recordings submitted during a closed hearing of a committee be 

made available to all Members on the same schedule and basis. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 28, 2019 

Mr. BURCHETT (for himself, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. DESJARLAIS, 

Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. FLEISCHMANN, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GONZALEZ of Ohio, 

Mr. GUEST, Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma, Mr. RIGGLEMAN, Mr. DAVID

P. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. JOHN W. ROSE of Tennessee, Mr. KUSTOFF

of Tennessee, Mr. ROY, Mr. HAGEDORN, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. OLSON, Mr. 

CURTIS, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. RUTHERFORD, and Mr. GUTHRIE) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

require all transcripts and recordings submitted during 

a closed hearing of a committee be made available to 

all Members on the same schedule and basis. 

Whereas all Members of the House of Representatives are 

duly elected by their constituents; and 

Whereas each Member of the House of Representatives, by 

virtue of holding their elected office, is cleared to view 

and hear sensitive classified information: Now, therefore, 

be it 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 657 IH 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

3 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘LEAC Tran4 scripts Resolution (Let Everyone Access a Copy of Tran5 scripts Resolution)’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EQUAL ACCESS. 

7 That rule XI of the Rules of the House of Represent8 atives is amended by adding at the end the following new 

9 clause: 

10 ‘‘Equal access 

11 ‘‘7. Any transcripts of proceedings, audio or video re12 cordings of proceedings, written testimony, and any sup13 porting information submitted during a classified or other14 wise closed hearing, briefing, deposition, interview or other 

15 official meeting of any standing, ad hoc, or select commit16 tees shall be made available to all Members on the same 

17 schedule and basis as it is made available to members of 

18 the committee before which the proceedings occurred or 

19 to which the information or testimony was submitted.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
1 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40609

Summary Calendar

 

JAMES B. BECKNELL, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LIEUTENANT WOOD; W.J. ESTELLE; COLONEL MOORE; ROBERT DELONG;

WARDEN E.H. TURNER; ALL DEFENDANTS,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:78-CV-285

- - - - - - - - - -

June 30, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

James B. Becknell, Jr., Texas prisoner # 274915, appeals the

district court’s denial of his motion to compel the defendants to

comply with the district court’s injunction issued on December 28,

1981. Becknell argues that the defendants required him to perform

job tasks which were inconsistent with his medical restrictions in

violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Becknell’s current job

assignment to the chow hall which requires him to wipe off the

tables is consistent with his medical restrictions. See Jackson v.
King, 864 F.2d 1235, 1246 (5th Cir. 1989). Any orders directing

Becknell to perform the additional tasks of wiping off the walls or

serving line were made by officers who were unaware of Becknell’s

medical restrictions and at most amount to mere negligence. See

id. The district court did not err in rescinding its prior

injunction based on significant changes in the law which now

protect Becknell’s Eighth Amendment rights. See United States v.

Lawrence County School District, 799 F.2d 1031, 1046 (5th Cir.

1986); Jackson, 864 F.2d at 1246.

Becknell argues for the first time on appeal that: (1) he was

assigned to work in a textile mill performing duties inconsistent

with his medical restrictions from 1980 to 1988; (2) he was

assigned to numerous other jobs inconsistent with his medical

restrictions; (3) the transportation provided by the prison caused

him pain and suffering; (4) the defendants have a policy of

involuntary servitude; (5) the defendants changed or lied about the

result of an x-ray of his shoulder; and (6) he requests injunctive

relief concerning numerous job requirements and living conditions.

Because these claims involve factual issues which were not

presented to the district court, we will not consider these claims.

See United States v. Rocha, 109 F.3d 225, 229 (5th Cir. 1997);

Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).

Becknell’s motion for mandatory disqualification and recusal

of the district court judge is DENIED. Because the additional

documents Becknell seeks to include in the appellate record are not

necessary for the resolution of his appeal, Becknell’s motion to

supplement the appellate record is also DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR RECUSAL DENIED; MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT

RECORD DENIED.
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 Quarterly Report of All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Victor Hollander, CFO and Principal Accounting 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:





3.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





4.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/S/ Victor HollanderVictor HollanderCFO andPrincipal Accounting OfficerAugust 18, 2010
Exhibit 32.1
 
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer, 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 Alamo Energy Corp. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Allan Millmaker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Alamo Energy Corp., and will be retained by Alamo Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 
 /s/ Allan MillmakerAllan Millmaker

Chief Executive Officer

March 22, 2011
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Jackson, Jr., Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 720]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated April 1, 2002 *(People v Jackson,*293 AD2d 488 [2002]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered September 5, 2000.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, EJ., Florio, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.
#### MAURO MOTORS INC., et al., Movants-Appellants, v. OLD CARCO LLC, aka Chrysler LLC, aka Chrysler Aspen, aka Chrysler Town & Country, aka Chrysler 300, aka Chrysler Sebring, aka Chrysler PT Cruiser, aka Dodge, aka Dodge Avenger, aka Dodge Caliber, aka Dodge Challenger, aka Dodge Dakota, *932aka Dodge Durango, aka Dodge Grand Caravan, aka Dodge Journey, aka Dodge Nitro, aka Dodge Ram, aka Dodge.

No. 10-3933-bk.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 22, 2011.

Leo Donofrio, Stephen W. Pidgeon, Pid-geon & Donofrio GP, Everett, WA, for Appellants.

Brett J. Berlin, Jeffrey B. Ellman, Beth R. Heifetz, Kevyn Duane Orr, (Corinne Ball, on the brief), Jones Day, New York, NY, for Appellee.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, GUIDO CALABRESI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

*AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER*

Appellants are automobile dealers whose dealership contracts with Chrysler were terminated by Chrysler as part of its bankruptcy and restructuring. They moved the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to reconsider its decision to allow Chrysler to exclude these contracts from the assets it sold to Fiat and to then reject these contracts after the sale under 11 U.S.C. § 365. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues presented for review.

A motion to reconsider a judgment must be rejected if “there was an opportunity to have the ground now relied upon to set aside the judgment fully litigated in the original action.” *Leber-Krebs, Inc. v. Capitol Records,*779 F.2d 895, 899 (2d Cir.1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). Appellants present no evidence or arguments in this collateral attack that could not have been presented in a timely appeal from the bankruptcy court’s original decision. Having failed to appeal from that decision, Appellants may not now attack it collaterally absent newly discovered evidence of fraud on the court. No such evidence has been presented, so Appellants’ motion to reconsider was properly denied.

As to the merits of Appellants’ claims, they are utterly frivolous. We reject these claims on the merits for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court below.

The bankruptcy court and the district court correctly concluded that there was no fraud on the court. As a result, we hereby AFFIRM the district court’s decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of Appellants’ motion to reconsider.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

339 KA 10-01196 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GERALD R. KROUTH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

GERALD R. KROUTH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NICOLE M. FANTIGROSSI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.), rendered February 19, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable and that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to suppress identification testimony from the child victim. We conclude that the waiver of the right to appeal is enforceable and that it therefore precludes defendant from challenging the court’s suppression ruling. “A waiver of the right to appeal is effective only so long as the record demonstrates that it was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily” ( People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256). Here, the court “engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” ( People v James , 71 AD3d 1465, 1465 [internal quotation marks omitted]; cf. People v Adger , 83 AD3d 1590, 1591, lv denied 17 NY3d 857), and informed him that the waiver was a condition of the plea agreement ( cf. People v Williams , 49 AD3d 1281, 1282, lv denied 10 NY3d 940). The record also establishes that defendant “indicated that he had spoken with defense counsel and understood that he was waiving his right to appeal as a condition of the plea” ( People v Dunham , 83 AD3d 1423, 1424, lv denied 17 NY3d 794). Finally, the court made clear to defendant that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited upon plea ( see Lopez , 6 NY3d-2- 339 KA 10-01196

at 256; see also People v Bradshaw , 18 NY3d 257, 264).
We note in any event that the court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion pursuant to People v Gee (286 AD2d 62, 72-73, affd 99 NY2d 158, rearg denied 99 NY2d 652).

Entered: March 28, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Denied and Opinion Filed July 23, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00856-CV

IN RE SONIA ALVAREZ, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-07-16957

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Bridges, and Justice Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Stoddart

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial 

court to vacate its June 15, 2015 orders and rulings, name relator sole managing conservator with 

right to establish the children who are the subject of the suit affecting parent-child relationship, 

transfer the case to Collin County, and sign an order in conformity with her understanding of the 

terms of a mediated settlement agreement among the parties. Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus 

relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that 

relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 

(Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). We conclude relator has failed to establish her right to 

mandamus relief. We deny the petition.

 

150856F.P05

/Craig Stoddart/

CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE