alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19232]


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

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, 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 grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group; Developmental Biology 
Subcommittee.
    Date: October 2, 2017.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda Downtown, 7335 Wisconsin Ave., 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Cathy J. Wedeen, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Scientific Review, OD, Eunice Kennedy Shriver 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS, 
6710 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, 301-435-6878, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f485a5b5a5a515c7f525e56531151565711585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c1b09080909020f2c010d050042020504420b031a">[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: September 6, 2017.
Michelle Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-19232 Filed 9-11-17; 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>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1 705

In re: CRYSTAL VL RIVERS , P etitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 6:18

- cv - 00061

- EKD

- JCH )

Submitted : December 4, 2020 Decided: December 29, 2020

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Crystal VL Rivers, Petitioner Pro Se. Sara Bugbee Winn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: This case comes before the court on a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Crystal VL Rivers under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (“CVRA”). The CVRA applies to crime victims and defines “crime victim” as “a person directly and proximately
harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(2)(A). A crime victim is entitled to r easonable protection from the accused, to notice of court proceedings, to participation in court proceedings, to confer with government counsel, to receive restitution, to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and to be treated with fairness. 18 U.S.C . § 3771(a). These rights must be asserted in the district court and, if the district court denies relief, the movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). If such a petition is filed, “[t]he court of appeals shall take up and decide such application forthwith within 72 hours after the petition has been filed. ” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3)

. * If the court of appeals denies the relief sought, “the reasons for the denial shall be clearly stated on the record in a writ ten opinion.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3)

. Rivers previously filed several CVRA motions in the district court, asserting that she is a victim of various financial frauds and accusing the Government of violating her right to confer. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). The district court denied relief, concluding, among other things, that Rivers’ own submissions demonstrated that she had received ample opportunities to speak with government counsel about the alleged fraud. S ee Rivers

* Rivers has explicitly waived this requirement.3 v. United States , No. 6:18

- cv - 00061

- EKD

- JCH (W.D. Va., Mar. 9 & 30, 2020) . Having reviewed the record and the petition before us, we agree that Rivers has failed to identify a CVRA violation. Accordingly , we deny Rivers’ petition , as well as her motion to hold this matter in abeyance.
PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.2

      CERTIFICATION OF CORPORATE CONTROLLER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form
10-QA/2  for  the period ending April 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio Estrada, Corporate Controller
and  Principal  Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C,
ss.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,

1)   the Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)   the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
     the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

By /s/ Antonio Estrada
Antonio Estrada
Corporate Controller
and Principal Financial Officer
March 1, 2004


<PAGE>
* 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. 01-31222

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALLEN NICHOLAS TASSIN,

 DefendantAppellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CR-70-ALL-N

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

May 20, 2002

Before JOLLY, WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Allen Nicholas Tassin appeals his conviction for kidnaping and use and carrying of a firearm

in relation to that crime. Tassin arguesthat the district court plainly erred by failing to admonish the

jury following a juror’s comment on hisfailure to testify. See United States v. Griffith, 118 F.3d 324,

325-26 (5th Cir. 1997). The reference to the failure to testify was spontaneous, it was a single
 

occurrence, Tassin’s exculpatory story discounting the credibility of the primary witnesses against

him was nonexistent, and the evidence that the victims did not consent to being transported across

state lines is overwhelming. In failing to admonish the jury, the district court error, if any, was

harmless. Chapman v. United States, 547 F.2d 1240, 1249-50 (5th Cir. 1977).

Tassin argues that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the Government to

present expert testimony. United States v. Williams, 822 F.2d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 1987). As the

district court concluded in denying Tassin’s motion for a new trial on this point, any evidence

regarding Tassin’s motive in setting fire to the car was inconsequential in the face of the

overwhelming direct evidence of the kidnaping. Tassin has not shown reversible error with respect

to this issue. 

Tassin argues that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing him to present

evidence of specific acts to show that a victim, called as a defense witness, was not credible. The

record is clear that the witness made a false police report and did not have a reputation for being

truthful. Tassin has not shown that evidence of specific acts would not be simply cumulative of

established facts. See United States v. Greer, 939 F.2d 1076, 1096-97 (5th Cir. 1991), related

portion reinstated, 968 F.2d 433, 434 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc). 

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19272]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

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 
12, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail 
Contract 351 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-187, CP2017-288.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-19272 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# Wuiteb**~tate~** 

# <!Courtof**§ppeal~** 

# for tbejf 

# eberal <!Circuit

JAMES L. BOUCHARD, Petitioner, 

### v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

2011-3125
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board 

### in case no. AT1221100506-W-1.
ONMOTION



### ORDER The Department ofVeterans Affairs moves to reform the official caption to designate the Merit Systems Protection Board as the respondent. James L. Bouchard opposes. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is designated as the respondent when the Board's decision concerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. The employing agency is designated as the respondent when the Board reaches the merits ofthe underlying case. WeBOUCHARD v. MSPB 2 determine that the Board should be designated as the respondent. Accordingly, ITIs ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. The revised official caption is reflected above.


## JUL 2? 2011 Date

cc: Beverly Bates, Esq.

s20Sarah A. Murray, Esq. Calvin Morrow, Esq. FOR THE COURT
lsI Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 

### FILED 

### '.s. COURTOFAPPEALSFOR THE FEOERAlCIRCUIT 

### JUL 

## 27 2011

JAN HORBALV CLERK
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 filed on the date
hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 By:
    /s/ KENNETH D. TUCHMANKenneth D. TuchmanChairman and Chief Executive Officer
CPI Corp - 10.53 Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation






EXHIBIT 10.53


STATE OF DELAWARE
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION


The corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware does hereby certify:


FIRST:  That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of CPI Corp. held on June 1-2, 2011, resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and presented at the 2011 Annual Meeting of stockholders of said corporation for consideration thereof.  The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:


RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be amended by changing the first paragraph of Article Four thereof so that, as amended, said Article shall be and read as follows:


The total number of shares of stock of all classed which the Corporation has the 
authority to issue is seventeen million (17,000,000) shares consisting of (a) sixteen million (16,000,000) shares of common stock, $0.40 par value per share (the “Common Stock”) and (b) one million (1,000,000) shares of preferred stock without par value (the “Preferred Stock”).


SECOND:  That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, an Annual Meeting of Stockholders of said corporation was duly called and held on August 10, 2011 upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.


THIRD:  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, said corporation has caused this certificate to be signed this 29th day of August, 2011.


By:/s/Jane E. Nelson                                           
______________________
Authorized Officer


Title:   Secretary   
Name:  Jane E. Nelson
Order filed, November 6, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00874-CR

____________

MIGUEL ANGEL SANCHEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1315362

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due October 29, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The 

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed 

timely, we issue the following order.

We order the official court reporter of the 208th District Court to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.1


        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND
         18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the filing of Zunicom, Inc. and Subsidiary (the
"Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"),I, William Tan, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C. (SS) 1350,
as enacted 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 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/ William Tan
--------------------
William Tan
President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)

May 14, 2009



























                                Exhibit 32.1 - 1
STATEMENT OF REGISTERED INVESTMENT COMPANIES
PURSUANT TO RULE 17g-1 UNDER THE 1940 ACT






	Pursuant to Rule 17g-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940,
the undersigned registered investment management company hereby states,
on behalf of each of the funds in the Aquila Group of Fundssm, as
follows:

	The premium for the 10 million dollar insured bond covering The
Aquila Group of Fundssm has been paid through the period ending June 30,
2007.

Dated this 26th day of June, 2006.








					The Aquila Group of Fundssm


					/s/  Robert W. Anderson
					___________________________
       				Robert W. Anderson
   					Chief Compliance Officer














						Total Assets




FUND 						Fund Level		      Bond Amount
      					06/30/06


TAX-FREE TRUST OF ARIZONA			375,437,864			750,000

TAX-FREE TRUST OF OREGON			428,376,810			750,000

HAWAIIAN TAX-FREE TRUST				744,304,624			900,000

TAX-FREE FUND OF COLORADO			229,486,114			600,000

CHURCHILL TAX-FREE FUND KENTUCKY		278,678,412			750,000

TAX-FREE FUND FOR UTAH				217,860,565			600,000

NARRANGANSETT INS T-F INC FD			155,193,915			600,000

ROCKY MOUNTAIN EQUITY FUND		  	25,632,035			300,000

CASH ASSETS TRUST					485,209,529			750,000

TAX-FREE CASH ASSETS TRUST			192,106,149			600,000

U.S. TREASURIES CASH ASSETS TRUST       1,257,711,392           1,250,000

THREE PEAKS HIGH INCOME FUND		        4,752,578			125,000

CAPITAL CASH MANAGEMENT TRUST		            1,001	             54,000

CAPITAL CASH US GOVT SEC TRUST		          0				0

CHURCHILL CASH RESERVE TRUST			      1,001	  		 54,000

					       	____________	      ________
TOTALS ASSETS ALL FUNDS:	        	4,394,751,987	     8,075,000
# ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

September 20, 2024 CR-2023-0349 City of Huntsville v. Dillon Barrett (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: CC-22- 3440) 

## NOTICE You are hereby notified that on September 20, 2024, the following action was taken in the above-referenced cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals: Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
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 Defense

###### Department of the Air Force

# AGENCY:

Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate, Department of the Air Force, DOD.

      ( print page 40572)    

# ACTION:

Notice of intent to issue an exclusive patent license.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the provisions of agency regulations, the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Sensible Spreader Technologies, LLC, a corporation of New Hampshire having a place of business at 844 Elm Street, Manchester, New Hampshire 03101, an exclusive license in any right, title and interest the United States Air Force has in: In U.S. Patent 8,428,993 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Risk Identification and Mitigation in Shift Work Fatigue”, issued on April 23, 2013.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 An exclusive license for this patent will be granted unless a written objection is received within fifteen (15) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Written objections should be sent to: Air Force Research Laboratory, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, AFRL/RIJ, 26 Electronic Parkway, Rome, New York 13441-4514. Telephone: (315) 330-2087; Facsimile (315) 330-7583.

Henry Williams,

Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2017-18053 Filed 8-24-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 1, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40811

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

RICHARD R. MINDIOLA; WILLIAM BEDFORD,

DefendantsAppellants.

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:04-CR-24-4 

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

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The FederalPublic Defender appointed to represent Richard R. Mindiola has moved for leave

to withdraw from representation and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Mindiola has not responded to counsel’s motion and brief. Our independent review

of the record and counsel’s brief shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 
-2-

Althoughcounselnotes a possible ineffective assistance ofcounselclaim, as counsel concedes,

the record isinsufficientlydeveloped to allow consideration ofthis claimon direct appeal. See United

States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and this APPEAL

IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.