alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19127]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 10116]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported 
for Exhibition Determinations: ``Club 57: Film, Performance, and Art in 
the East Village, 1978-1983'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition 
``Club 57: Film, Performance, and Art in the East Village, 1978-1983,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a 
loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine 
that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Museum of 
Modern Art, New York, New York, from on or about October 31, 2017, 
until on or about April 1, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions 
or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the 
Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; 
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c1f090f180503025e5859552c1f180d1809420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b786e687f626465393f3e324b787f6a7f6e256c647d">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. Department 
of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257-1 of 
December 11, 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
determinations be published in the Federal Register.

Alyson Grunder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2017-19127 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Tyriek Tucker, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Laurie Peterson, J.), rendered October 14, 2015, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of unlawful possession of marihuana, and sentencing him to a fine of $75.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Laurie Peterson, J.), rendered October 14, 2015, affirmed.</p><p>We are unpersuaded that the bargained for sentence imposed - payment of a $75 fine - was harsh or excessive. "Ordinarily ... where defendant effects a plea bargain and receives the precise sentence that was promised, he should not later be heard to complain that he received what he bargained for" (<i>People v Fair</i>, 33 AD3d 558, 558 [2006], <i>lv denied </i>8 NY3d 945 [2007], quoting <i>People v Chambers</i>, 123 AD2d 270, 270 [1986]). Although defendant claims that he is indigent, he never sought relief from the fine by way of a CPL 420.10(5) motion for resentencing (<i>see People v Toledo</i>, 101 AD3d 571 [2012], <i>lv denied </i>21 NY3d 947 [2013]) and, indeed, has paid the fine.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: September 12, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q of Health Fitness
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2004 (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Wesley W. Winnekins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company.



/s/      Wesley W. Winnekins

Wesley W. Winnekins
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2004
#### Donald J.A. KENNEDY, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent.

No. 2006-3378.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 10, 2007.

Before RADER, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The Department of the Air Force moves without opposition to lift the stay of proceedings and remand Donald J.A. Kennedy’s petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Kennedy filed an appeal alleging that the Department had improperly charged him leave for the performance of military reserve duty on non-workdays in violation of the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. § 4301 (2000). The Board held that Kennedy had failed to meet his burden of establishing a violation of USERRA and dismissed his complaint without granting a hearing. Kennedy appealed.

On March 7, 2007, we issued our decision in *Kirkendall v. Army,*479 F.3d 830 (Fed.Cir.2007) (en banc), *cert.*denied-U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 375, 169 L.Ed.2d 260, (2007). *Kirkendall*held, inter alia, that *252USERRA requires that “any veteran who requests a hearing shall receive one.” *Id.*at 844. Because Kennedy was denied a hearing, we remand for further proceedings in light of *Kirkendall.*On remand, the Board may also consider, inter alia, our recent decisions in *Hernandez v. Department of the Air Force,*498 F.3d 1328 (Fed.Cir.2007) and *Pucilowski v. Department of Justice,*498 F.3d 1341 (Fed.Cir.2007).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The Board’s decision is vacated and the case is remanded to the Board for further proceedings.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         September 6, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 30, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 346 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-181, CP2017-282.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-18771 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 OrthoLogic Corp. (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 (the "Report"), I, Sherry A. Sturman,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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; 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/ Sherry A. Sturman
----------------------------------
Sherry A. Sturman
Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 12, 2003


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6924

HENRY JOHN WHITED,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD F. MOAT, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-95-1039-WMN)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry John Whited, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal

period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an

extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day

period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to

relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established

by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v.

Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting

United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district

court entered its order on April 14, 1995; Appellant's notice of

appeal was filed on June 6, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives

this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GLIATECH
INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,554
<SECURITIES>                                    22,641
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,053
<ALLOWANCES>                                       549
<INVENTORY>                                      1,298
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,879
<PP&E>                                           4,028
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,961
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,593
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            95
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,961
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,649
<SALES>                                          7,756
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,285
<CGS>                                            1,147
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,147
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,917
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    474
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                474
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       474
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Robert Steven Dudley

, * From the 244 th District

Court of Ector County,

Trial Court No. C

- 37,722

.

Vs. No. 11

- 12

- 00110

- CR * March 20, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the tria l court is in all things affirmed.
exhibitfourone.htm


Not valid unless countersigned by transfer agent


Incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              CUSIP NO. 206694 10 1


Number ________                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Shares _______







CONCRETE CASTING


INCORPORATED


AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK:  500,000,000 SHARES


PAR VALUE:  $0.001







THIS CERTIFIES THAT












IS THE HOLDER OF












Shares of Concrete Casting Incorporated Common Stock


Transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.  This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.







     Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.







Dated:












_______________________________                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ______________________________


                                                   Secretary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                President







CONCRETE CASTING INCORPORATED


CORPORATE


SEAL


NEVADA







Countersigned:


Standard Registrar & Transfer Company, Inc.                           By:  _____________________________


12528 South 1840 East                                                                         Authorized Signature


Draper, Utah  84020
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18662]


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

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Forum

    On Tuesday and Wednesday, September 19 and 20, 2017, the National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will convene a forum titled Runway 
Incursion Safety Issues, Prevention, and Mitigation. The forum will 
begin at 9:00 a.m. each day and is open to the public. Attendance is 
free, and no registration is required. NTSB Board Member Christopher A. 
Hart will preside over the forum. Invited panelists will include 
representatives from federal agencies, airlines, and industry 
associations. The panelists will make presentations, and a question-
and-answer period between the NTSB and the panelists will follow each 
presentation to further explore the information discussed.
    Below is the preliminary agenda.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017 (9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.)

1. Opening remarks by Member Hart
2. Panel 1: Runway Incursion Statistics and Trends
3. Panel 2: Air Traffic Control
4. Panel 3: Aircraft Operations

Wednesday, September 20, 2017 (9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.)

1. Opening remarks by Member Hart
2. Panel 4: Airports
3. Roundtable discussion with panelists and other industry 
stakeholders, moderated by Member Hart
4. Closing remarks by Member Hart

    The forum will be held in the NTSB Boardroom and Conference Center, 
located at 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC. The public can view 
the forum in person or via live webcast at http://ntsb.capitolconnection.org/. An archived version of each day's webcast 
is expected to be available on September 21, 2017, and the webcasts 
will be archived for 3 months after the date of the event.
    Individuals requiring reasonable accommodation and/or wheelchair 
access directions should contact Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314-6305 
or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cc9ea3afa4a9a0a0a9e281af8fada0a0a5bfb8a9be8ca2b8bfaee2aba3ba"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e5b78a868d80898980cba886a68489898c96918097a58b919687cb828a93">[email protected]</span></a> by Tuesday, September 12, 
2017. Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are 
also available at www.ntsb.gov.
    NTSB Media Contact: Mr. Terry <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f28161313161e120c2028161313161e2b3f110b0c1d51181009">[email protected]</a>.
    NTSB Forum Manager: Mr. Dan <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d5f7c6f697178696942597c73747871335f7c6f69717869695d73696e7f337a726b">[email protected]</a>.

Candi R. Bing,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-18662 Filed 9-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7533-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 22 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

GILBERT DEAN DAVIS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

JUSTINE JONES,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 96-6152

(W. Dist. of Oklahoma)

(D.C. No. CIV-95-1845-W)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

This matter is before the court on Petitioner Gilbert Dean Davis’

application for a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s dismissal

of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because Mr. Davis

has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” and

this petition constitutes an abuse of the writ, we deny his application and dismiss

the appeal. See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). 

Mr. Davis filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the district court

contending that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance

of counsel and his due process right to a post-examination competency hearing. 

The magistrate judge reviewed Mr. Davis’ petition and recommended that it be

dismissed for abuse of the writ. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 9(b). 

The district court agreed with the magistrate judge and dismissed Mr. Davis’

petition April 15, 1996.

We have reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the

district court’s order, Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability,

and the record before us. We conclude that Petitioner has failed to make a

substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right for substantially the

reasons set forth in the report and recommendation of March 18, 1996. 
-3-

Accordingly, we DENY Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability

and DISMISS the appeal. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge