alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Juanita H., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Rose B., Appellant; St. Mary’s Children and Family Services, Respondent.

[665 NYS2d 650]

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara Schechter, J.), entered on or about April 22, 1996, which terminated parental rights upon a finding of neglect and committed custody and guardianship of the subject child to the *90Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Despite the agency’s fulfillment of its statutory obligation to exert diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by providing persistent casework counseling and referrals, the evidence is clear that respondent has failed to understand and respond to the child’s needs and problems, has not sufficiently overcome the problems that led to the child’s initial placement into foster care, and thus, has failed to plan for the return of the child within the meaning of the Social Services Law *(see, Matter of Sonia H.,*177 AD2d 575, 576). Respondent has failed to recognize that the child has been traumatized by the climate of violence in the household during the first six years of her life. Not only has respondent failed to recognize the child’s needs, fears and anxiety and heed the advice of the mental health professionals, she blames the child for the situation and has repeatedly placed her own needs above those of the child.

Finally, the evidence amply supports the conclusion reached by the Family Court that adoption by the child’s foster parents is in the best interests of the child. The child has become more fearful of respondent and resistance to visitation or contact with her has manifested itself in both physical and psychological problems. To continue the child in foster care after so many years, as respondent suggests, would only prolong a situation of uncertainty *(see, Matter of Charles Clarence C.,*213 AD2d 294). We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6638

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PRESTON CORNELIUS EVERETT, a/k/a P, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00019-LMB; 1:07-cv-00120-LMB) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 31, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Preston Cornelius Everett, Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Preston Cornelius Everett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Everett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22825]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; 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 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 Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Evaluation and Testing Services for 
Vaccines and Other Biologics for Diseases (N01).
    Date: November 14, 2017.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Annie Walker-Abbey, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 5601 Fishers 
Lane, Room 3E70A, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-627-3390, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1808083838498a18f88808885cf8f8889cf868e97"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4425252626213d042a2d252d206a2a2d2c6a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 17, 2017.
Natasha M. Copeland,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-22825 Filed 10-19-17; 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>
##### 



Exhibit 21.1
  Delek US
    Holdings, Inc.
    Subsidiaries of the Registrant
  State ofCompany Name:

Incorporation:MAPCO Express, Inc.


DEWilliamson Oil Co., Inc.


ALGasoline Associated Services, Inc.


ALLiberty Wholesale Co., Inc.


ALDelek Refining, Inc.


DEDelek U.S. Refining GP, LLC


TXDelek Refining, Ltd.


TXDelek Pipeline Texas, Inc.


TXMPC Pipeline Acquisition, Inc.


TXDelek Land Texas, Inc.


TXMPC Land Acquisition, Inc.


TXDelek Marketing & Supply, Inc.


DEDelek Marketing & Supply, LP


DEDelek Marketing GP, LLC


DEDelek Finance, Inc.


DEMAPCO Fleet, Inc.


DE
**Exhibit
      32.1**








DUTCH
      GOLD RESOURCES, INC.;





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Certified Services, Inc. on Form 10-KSB
      for the year period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on December 6, 2007 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
      the
      capacities and on the dates indicated below, each 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
      Company’s Annual Report on Form 10–KSB for the year ended June 30, 2004, as
      filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.





This
      Certification is signed on December 6, 2007.







/s/Daniel
                W. HollisDaniel
                W. HollisChief
                Executive and FinancialOfficerDutch
                Gold Resources, Inc.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank D’Antuono, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 93]

—Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Niagara County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: County Court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 without conducting a hearing. There are factual issues raised in the motion papers whether the People exercised due diligence and made reasonable efforts to secure defendant’s presence in the jurisdiction for trial. Thus, a hearing must be held to determine whether the People are entitled to exclude certain periods of delay in computing the time in which they were required to be ready for trial under CPL 30.30 (1) (a) *(see, People v Santos,*68 NY2d 859, 861-862; *People v Channer,*209 AD2d 1056; *People v Grant,*127 AD2d 965). Therefore, we reserve decision and re*1109mit the matter to Niagara County Court for a hearing to resolve the factual issues raised by defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment *(see, People v Channer, supra; People v Grant, supra).*(Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Callahan, Balio and Fallon, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Curtis Dale LOLLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30738

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

Josette Louise Cassiere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Earl M. Campbell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Betty Lee Marak, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Curtis Dale Lolley, Minden, LA, pro se.

*361Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Curtis Dale Lolley has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Lolley has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 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.

*

 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.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. BI LL CELEY A FLO RES, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 11- 30273 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 9 - c r - 0 5 8 1 0 - RBL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R ona l d B . L e i ght on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d June 26, 2012 ** B e f o r e : S C H R O E D E R , H A W K I N S , an dG O U L D , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . B i l l C e l e y aF l or e s appe a l s f r om the 57- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n f o re ig h t c o u n ts o f

d is tr ib u tio n o f

O x y c o d o n e , in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) an d( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) ; o n e c o u n t o f p o s s e s s io n w ith i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e O x y c o d o n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) an d( b ) ( 1 ) ( C)



# FI LED JU L 02 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 30273 2 and 18 U . S . C . § 2; and one c ountof pos s e s s i on of

af i r e arm byan unl aw f

ul us e rof a c on trol l ed subst ance (M ethado ne), i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 92 2(g)(3), 9 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) an d2 . W e d is m is s . F l ores cont ends thathe w as deni ed ef fe ct i ve as si st ance of coun se l at s e nt e nc i ng w he n c ouns e l f a i l e d t o obj e c tt o ar gum e nt s m a de bythe gove rnm e nt tha ta l l e ge dl ybr e a c he d the pl e aa gr e e m e nt . W e ar e pr e c l ude d f r om r e a c hi ng the m e r i t s of F l or e s ’ s c l a i m byava l i d appe a l w a i ve ri n w hi c h F l or e s ga ve up hi s r i ght to p u r s u e ad ir e c t ap p e a l o f h is s e n te n c e . See U

ni ted States v. N

un ez , 223 F . 3d 956, 959 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( “ [ O ] ne w a i ve s the r i ghtt o ar gue i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of c ouns e l a ts e nt e nc i ng on di r e c tappe a l w he n one w a i ve s the r i ghtt o appe a l the se nt ence . ”) . DI S MI S S E D.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demorris Tyrese ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7497.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

Demorris Tyrese Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Demorris Tyrese Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appeal-ability 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Allen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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.*
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3243 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3243

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
  any hours worked by Federal firefighters under a qualified trade-of-
   time arrangement shall be excluded for purposes of determinations 
                       relating to overtime pay.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF HOURS WORKED UNDER A TRADE-OF-TIME 
              ARRANGEMENTS.

    Section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any 
hours worked by a firefighter under a qualified trade-of-time 
arrangement shall be disregarded for purposes of any determination 
relating to eligibility for or the amount of any overtime pay under 
this section.
    ``(2) For purposes of this section--
            ``(A) the term `qualified trade-of-time arrangement' means 
        an arrangement under which 2 firefighters who are employed by 
        the same agency agree, solely at their option and with the 
        approval of their employing agency, to substitute for one 
        another during scheduled work hours in performance of work in 
        the same capacity; and
            ``(B) the term `firefighter' has the meaning given such 
        term by sections 8331(21) and 8401(14), respectively.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 30 
      (legislative day September 29), 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 32

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of INVVISION CAPITAL, INC., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), John
E. Rea, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that
to his 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ John E. Rea
---------------
John E. Rea
Principal Executive Officer
May 24, 2004


                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of INVVISION CAPITAL, INC., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Bruce
A. Hall, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that
to his 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Bruce A. Hall
-----------------
Bruce A. Hall
Principal Financial Officer
May 24, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to INVVISION CAPITAL, INC. and will be retained by INVVISION CAPITAL,
INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
##### 



(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 Dex Media, Inc. as of
the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ David C. Swanson

David C. Swanson
    
    
    
    /s/ Steven M. Blondy

Steven M. BlondyChairman of the Board of Directors
    
    
    
    Executive Vice President, Chiefand Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Financial Officer and DirectorMarch
30, 2007
    
    
    
    March 30, 2007
  78
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.                  

###### Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries

# AGENCY:

Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.

# ACTION:

Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a closed meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on November 3, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at Conduent, 420 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10170.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, at 703-414-2163.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at Conduent, 420 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10170, on November 3, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B).

                    A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.,                           ( print page 48255)                        that the subject of the meeting falls within the exception to the open meeting requirement set forth in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such meeting be closed to public participation.                

Dated: October 10, 2017.

David M. Ziegler,

Chair, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.

[FR Doc. 2017-22479 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P