alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45586-45587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20938]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9035-4]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa/ nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed 09/18/2017 Through 09/22/2017
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.
EIS No. 20170184, Final, FRA, GA, Atlanta-Chattanooga High Speed Ground 
Transportation Project, Review Period Ends: 10/29/2017, Contact: John 
Winkle 202-493-6067
EIS No. 20170185, Final, DOC, AL, Nationwide Public Safety Broadband 
Network for the Southern United States, Review Period Ends: 10/29/2017, 
Contact: Amanda Pereira 571-665-6042
EIS No. 20170186, Draft, FHWA, UT, I-15, Payson Main Street 
Interchange, Comment Period Ends: 11/13/2017, Contact: Justin 
Schellenberg 801-965-4000
EIS No. 20170187, Draft, USACE, CA, Aliso Creek Mainstem Ecosystem 
Restoration Study, Comment Period Ends: 11/13/2017, Contact: Deborah 
Lamb (213) 452-3798
EIS No. 20170188, Draft, USFS, CO, Rio Grande Forest Plan Revision, 
Comment Period Ends: 12/28/2017, Contact: Erin Minks 719-852-6215
EIS No. 20170189, Final Supplement, BOP, KY, Proposed U.S. Penitentiary 
and Federal Prison Camp, Letcher County, KY, Review Period Ends: 10/29/
2017, Contact: Issac Gaston 202-514-6470

[[Page 45587]]

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20170135, Draft, NPS, WA, Olympic National Park Draft Mountain 
Goat Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 09/26/2017, Contact: 
Christina Miller 360-565-3004

    Revision to FR Notice Published 07/28/2017; Extending Comment 
Period from 09/26/2017 to 10/10/2017.

    Dated: September 26, 2017.
Kelly Knight,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-20938 Filed 9-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4811

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JAIME CALLEJAS-URIBE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00061-gec-bwc-3)

Submitted: December 23, 2009 Decided: January 7, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Allegra M.C. Black, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia; Ryan Lee Souders, Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorneys, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Without a plea agreement, Jaime Callejas-Uribe pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). The districtcourt sentenced him to ninety-six months in prison. CallejasUribe appeals.

Counsel filed an Anders 1 brief, finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred by imposing an upward variance sentence without giving Callejas-Uribe notice of its intention to do so. However, the Supreme Court has held that an upward variance does not require notice under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h). Irizarry v. United States , 128 S. Ct. 2198 (2008).

In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 2 We therefore affirm Callejas-Uribe’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Callejas-Uribe, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Callejas-Uribe requests

1 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2 Callejas-Uribe was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not file one.

23 that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Callejas-Uribe. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Lee REEYES, a.k.a. Boo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-15337

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 19, 2008.

James A. Hernandez, Jacksonville, FL, for appellant.

Patricia D. Barksdale, Jacksonville, FL, for appellee.

Before MARCUS, PRYOR and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

James A. Hernandez, appointed counsel for Oscar Lee Reeves in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and *757Reeves’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6638

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONALD CHANEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District 

Judge. (3:08-cr-00773-MBS-1; 3:11-cv-70059-MBS)

Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: October 31, 2012

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Chaney, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Chaney seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Chaney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny the motion to hold the case in abeyance, deny a certificate 

of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20648

Conference Calendar

 

BOBBY JAMES GANN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, 

Director, Texas Dep’t

of Criminal Justice, 

Institutional Division,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-95-CV-80

- - - - - - - - - -

April 16, 1997

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We previously determined that Gann’s notice of appeal from

the order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition was timely only

if Gann had filed a timely Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, which

would have delayed the effective filing date of Gann’s notice of

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(C). 
No. 96-20648

- 2 -

The court remanded the case to the district court to

determine whether a postjudment motion filed by Gann was

deposited in the prison mailing system within ten days of entry

of judgment, which would have rendered the motion a timely filed

Rule 59(e) motion. See Gann v. Johnson, No. 96-20648 (5th Cir.

Nov. 11, 1996); Fed. R. App. P. 4(c). 

The district court determined that Gann’s motion was not

deposited in the prison mailing system within ten days of entry

of judgment based on the affidavit of the prison official who is

the custodian of the prison’s mail records. Gann concedes that

he did not deposit the postjudment motion for mailing within ten

days of the entry of judgment. Therefore, Gann’s postjudment

motion was not a Rule 59(e) motion which extended the time to

file an effective notice of appeal. Gann’s notice of appeal

filed on June 28, 1996, was not timely and, thus, this court

lacks jurisdiction to address this appeal.

Gann’s postjudgment motion must be construed as a Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b) motion. See Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals

784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc). Gann has not

evinced an intent to appeal from the denial of the Rule 60(b)

motion. Gann has not filed a new or an amended notice of appeal

from the order denying the Rule 60(b) motion.

The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go

to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 2 2

- BG

- 502

IN RE GUILLERMO D. URIARTE

DDN 202 2

- D0 8 9

A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg istration No. 463801

BEFORE: Easterly and Howard

, Associate Judges, and F isher , Senior Judge.

O R D E R (FILED

— September 22, 2022)

On consideration of the accurate copy of the order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia suspending Guillermo D.

Uriarte from the practice of law in that court for a period of 90 days ; this court’s August 3

, 202 2 , order suspending Mr. Uriarte pending resolution of this matter and directing h im to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed , no response having been filed; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing

that Mr. Uriarte has not filed his D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g) affidavit , it is

ORDERED that Guillermo D. Uriarte is hereby suspended from the practice

of law in the District of Columbia fo r a period of 90 days

. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d

483

, 487

- 88 (D.C. 2010) ; In re Fuller , 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies unless one of the exceptions is established). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement

, Mr. Uriarte’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

PER CURIAM
# **EXHIBIT 32.1**

# ** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

** **

Inconnection with the March 31, 2008 Form 10-Q of Cornell Companies, Inc.(the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, James E. Hyman, Chief Executive Officer and theChairman of the Board, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuantto 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/  James E. Hyman                       |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   | James  E. Hyman, Chief Executive Officer, |
|   | President  and Chairman of the Board      |
|   | May 12,  2008                        |

 

Note:  The certification the registrant furnishes inthis exhibit is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilitiesof that Section. Registration Statements or other documents filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit, exceptas otherwise stated in such filing.

 

----
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3263 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow the storage and conveyance of nonproject water at the Norman 

project in Oklahoma, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3263 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lake Thunderbird Ef3 ficient Use Act of 2012’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NORMAN PROJECT, OKLAHOMA. 

5 Public Law 86–529 (74 Stat. 225) is amended by 

6 adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 10. LAKE THUNDERBIRD. 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary of the Interior 

9 determines that there is enough excess capacity in the res10 ervoir on the Little River known as ‘Lake Thunderbird’ 

11 that nonproject water can be stored in Lake Thunderbird, 

12 the Secretary of the Interior may, in accordance with the 

13 reclamation laws, amend an existing contract, or enter 

14 into 1 or more new contracts, with the Central Oklahoma 

15 Master Conservancy District for the storage and convey16 ance of nonproject water in Norman project facilities to 

17 augment municipal and industrial supplies for the cities 

18 served by the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy Dis19 trict. 

20 ‘‘(b) COSTS.—If any additional infrastructure is 

21 needed to enable the storage and conveyance of non22 project water in Norman project facilities under sub23 section (a) or any other provision of this Act, the costs 

24 of constructing, operating, and maintaining the infrastruc25 ture shall be the responsibility of the non-Federal entity 
3 

•HR 3263 EH

1 contracting with the Secretary of the Interior for storage 

2 and conveyance rights.’’. 

3 SEC. 3. EFFECT. 

4 Nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this 

5 Act authorizes any expansion of the storage capacity of 

6 Lake Thunderbird. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 5, 2012. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3263 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow 

other purposes. at the Norman project in Oklahoma, and for the storage and conveyance of nonproject water
CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY

#### Christopher Lee Lewis v. Roger A. Glover, Jr., et al.

June 2, 1983

Case No. 2856

By JUDGE CHARLES B. FLANNAGAN, II

This matter is currently before the court on the defendant Dr. Glover’s motion to strike paragraph VII of the amended motion for judgment. Defendant Glover contends that the Notice of Claim of Medical Malpractice, given pursuant, to the Code of Virginia, 8 8.01-581.2, gave notice of a claim for medical malpractice occurring prior to the time of the infant’s birth, whereas, paragraph VII of the amended motion for judgment makes a claim based on acts of malpractice occurring subsequent to the infant’s birth, specifically, negligence in resuscitation efforts on the infant.

On March 7, 1983, the court entered an order permitting the amended pleading. However, at the time of the entry of that order, counsel for defendant Glover appeared and orally objected to the amendment on the grounds now cited. The court ruled that the amendment would be allowed, but that defendant Glover would be permitted to raise the issue by formal pleadings. Subsequently, defendant Glover filed a motion to strike paragraph VII, which motion was argued on May 19, 1983.

The Code of Virginia 8 8.01-581.2 provides that no action may be brought for medical malpractice unless the claimant notifies the Health Care Provider in writing of his claim prior to commencing the action. Specifically, that Code Section requires that "the written notification *68shall include the time of the alleged malpractice and a reasonable description of the act or acts of malpractice."

In the case at bar, the Notice of Claim of Medical Malpractice given to defendant Glover details the acts complained of, stating precise times of occurrences. The negligence detailed in the notice ranges from inadequate prenatal office treatment to failure to give adequate attention between the time of the mother’s admission to the hospital and the time of a forceps delivery of the infant claimant:

> who had by that time sustained irreversible brain damage caused by placental insufficiency and other related, complicating conditions, *all of which resulted from the failure of the Hospital and Dr. Glover to provide proper medical care and treatment to Mrs. Lewis and her unborn child.*Notice of Claim, p. 3. (Italics added.)

The court is of the opinion that the Notice given did not provide a reasonable description of a claim that defendant Glover was negligent in failing to provide "proper and effective resuscitation" to the infant and plaintiff is not in compliance with Section 8.01-581.2 of the Code. Accordingly, defendant Glover’s motion to strike paragraph VII of the amended Motion for Judgment will be granted.
** Exhibit 13.2**

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)

Pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer ofAustralia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, a public company incorporatedunder the laws of Victoria, Australia (the “Company”), hereby certifies, thatto my knowledge:

The Annual Report on Form20-F for the year ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) of the Companyfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

Dated: January 8, 2007

 

/s/ P R Marriott

P R MarriottChief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is notbeing filed as part of the Report or as separate disclosure document

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          14,465
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,803
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,541
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,972
<PP&E>                                           9,209
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,797
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,914
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,732
<SALES>                                          5,432
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,432
<CGS>                                            2,103
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,168
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,560)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,560)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,560)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.17)
        

</TABLE>