alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 52298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24431]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than November 29, 2017.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Henderson State Company, Henderson, Nebraska; to engage in 
lending activities, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.


    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 6, 
2017.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Assistant Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2017-24431 Filed 11-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 51637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24144]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following Heart, Lung, & Blood 
Program Project Review Committee 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: Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group; 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Program Project Review Committee.
    Date: December 1, 2017.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Sheraton BWI (Baltimore), 1100 Old Elkridge Landing Road, 
Baltimore, MD 21090.
    Contact Person: Jeffrey H. Hurst, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and 
Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge 
Drive, Room 7208, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0303, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9d1cccbcacdd3f9d7d1d5dbd097d7d0d197ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e061b1c1d1a042e0006020c074000070640090118">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 1, 2017.
Michelle Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-24144 Filed 11-6-17; 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>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132853 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

CITY OF DETROIT,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132853 

 COA: 269375 

Wayne CC: 05-528622-CC

GEORGE BAGDASARIAN and 

LINDA J. BAGDASARIAN,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0830 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Carl Savoy","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/csavoy\/","title":"Commissioner Sola Interviewed in News Story on Cruise Industry","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"L7456rZ4vz\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-sola-interviewed-in-news-story-on-cruise-industry\/\">Commissioner Sola Interviewed in News Story on Cruise Industry<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-sola-interviewed-in-news-story-on-cruise-industry\/embed\/#?secret=L7456rZ4vz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Sola Interviewed in News Story on Cruise Industry” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"L7456rZ4vz\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2397

___________

Harold Henderson, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Randy Morgan, Warden, Maximum * Appeal from the United States

Security Unit, Arkansas Department * District Court for the

of Correction; Steve Outlaw, Assistant * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Warden, Maximum Security Unit, *

Arkansas Department of Correction; * [UNPUBLISHED]

C. C. Hampton; Richard Wimberly, *

Major, Maximum Security Unit, *

Arkansas Department of Correction; *

originally sued as Randy Wimbley, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: December 2, 1998

 Filed: December 7, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court 1

for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas. 

-2-

Harold Henderson, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court&s

1

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following an evidentiary hearing. After

careful review of the record and the parties& briefs, we conclude that the district court

did not err in dismissing Henderson&s complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment

of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifton Elais HOWARD, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10104.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2008.*

Filed May 15, 2008.

Kathleen A. Servatius, Esq., Dawrence W. Rice, Jr., Esq., USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James R. Homola, Esq., Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Clifton Elais Howard, III, appeals from his conviction for one count of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), one count of armed credit union robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and one count of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. *778§ 924(c)(1). The facts are known to the parties and need not be repeated here.

Howard argues that the district court improperly corrected an erroneous code section citation in Count Six of the jury verdict form, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 86. However, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that the jury intended to convict for a Federal Bank Robbery Act violation, rather than for a Hobbs Act violation; the jury was correctly instructed that Count Six charged a Federal Bank Robbery Act violation, and the jury also was correctly instructed on the required showings for a conviction under such statute. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in correcting the verdict form to “to reflect the jury’s true intent.” *United States v. Stauffer,*922 F.2d 508, 513-14 (9th Cir.1990); *see also Gov’t of V.I. v. Bedford,*671 F.2d 758, 762-64 (3d Cir.1982) (holding that an error in a jury verdict form “was merely clerical”).

Howard’s argument concerning the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction is waived. *See United States v. Kama,*394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir.2005) (“Generally, an issue is waived when the appellant does not specifically and distinctly argue the issue in his or her opening brief.”).

Howard argues that his conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, because he was convicted for one count of violating the Federal Bank Robbery Act but acquitted for two charged Hobbs Act violations. However, “a criminal defendant [cannot] upset a conviction because it was inconsistent with an acquittal on another count at the same trial.” *Wilson v. Czerniak,*355 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir.2004) (citing *United States v. Powell,*469 U.S. 57, 64-69, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984)).

For the foregoing reasons, Howard’s conviction is

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
----

----

| (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2013 of FindEx.com, Inc. (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 FindEx.com, Inc. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/ Steven Malone                                      |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Steven Malone                                          |
|   |   | President                                              |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer) |

----

----
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 51299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24002]



[[Page 51299]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Notice of a Change in Status of an Extended Benefit (EB) Period 
for Alaska

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under 
the EB Program for Alaska.
    The following change has occurred since the publication of the last 
notice regarding the State's EB status:
    <bullet> Based on data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
on October 20, 2017, Alaska's 3-month average seasonally adjusted total 
unemployment rate was 7.1 percent which exceeds 110 percent of the 
corresponding rate in the second preceding year. This causes Alaska to 
be triggered ``on'' to an EB period beginning November 5, 2017. The 
State will remain in an EB period for a minimum of 13 weeks.

Information for Claimants

    The duration of benefits payable in the EB Program, and the terms 
and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and 
the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department 
of Labor. In the case of a state beginning an EB period, the State 
Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement 
to each individual who has exhausted all rights to regular benefits and 
is potentially eligible for EB (20 CFR 615.13 (c) (1)).
    Persons who believe they may be entitled to EB, or who wish to 
inquire about their rights under the program, should contact their 
State Workforce Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment 
and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance Room S-
4524, Attn: Anatoli Sznoluch, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 
DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-3176 (this is not a toll-free 
number) or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9eac3d7d6d5ccdad197f8d7d8cdd6d5d0f9ddd6d597ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d88ba2b6b7b4adbbb0f699b6b9acb7b4b198bcb7b4f6bfb7ae">[email protected]</span></a>.

Nancy M. Rooney,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Labor.
[FR Doc. 2017-24002 Filed 11-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Report of PharmaNet Development Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey P. McMullen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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/ Jeffrey P. McMullen*              | 
| | Jeffrey P. McMullen                   | 
| | President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|

Date: May 10, 2007



* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Gerald W. McPEEK; Theresa A. McPeek, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

Nos. 10-1393, 10-1394.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 19, 2010.

Filed: Dec. 2, 2010.

Gerald W. McPeek, St. Peters, MO, pro se.

Theresa A. McPeek, St. Peters, MO, pro se.

Laurie Snyder, John A. Dicicco, U.S. Department of Justice, William Wilkins, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Gerald and Theresa McPeek challenge the tax court’s1 adverse grants of summary judgment in their actions seeking redeterminations of their liabilities. Upon careful de novo review, *see Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. Comm’r,*594 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir.2010), ce*rt. denied,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 86, 178 L.Ed.2d 241 (2010), we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted, *see Bell v. Comm’r,*126 T.C. 356, 358, 2006 WL 1391385 (2006) (26 U.S.C. § 6330 allows challenges to existence or amount of underlying liability if petitioner did not receive notice of deficiency or otherwise have opportunity to dispute liability; this statutory preclusion is triggered by opportunity to contest underlying liability, even if opportunity is not pursued).

We further conclude that the tax court did not abuse its discretion in denying the McPeeks’ motions under Tax Court Rule 162 to vacate the summary judgment decisions, because they provided no evidence of unusual circumstances or substantial error. *See Intermountain Ins. Serv. of Vail, Ltd. Liability Co. v. Comm’r,*134 T.C. No. 11, 2010 WL 1838297 at *3 (2010) (decision to grant motions to reconsider and to vacate lies within discretion of court; mo*114tions to vacate are generally not granted absent showing of unusual circumstances or substantial error, e.g., mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other reason justifying relief; comparing Rule 162 with Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).

Accordingly, the judgments are affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Maurice B. Foley, United States Tax Court Judge.
#### Joseph James FALCETTA, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-50203

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 6, 2010.

Joseph James Falcetta, Jr., Gatesville, TX, pro se.

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

*883PER CURIAM: *

Joseph James Falcetta, Jr., Texas prisoner # 822447, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. The district court construed Falcetta’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismissed the constructive § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized.

Falcetta challenges the apparent decision of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to have him serve his 191-month federal sentence consecutively to his 44-year state sentence. We previously affirmed the district court’s denial of a previous § 2241 habeas corpus petition. *Falcetta v. United States,*155 Fed.Appx. 762 (5th Cir.2005). We construe the current petition as challenging the execution of Falcetta’s sentence and thus arising under § 2241. *See Pack v. Yusuff,*218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir.2000).

Falcetta argues that the district court’s intent in sentencing him, as expressed in a newspaper article, was to impose his federal sentences to run concurrently with his state sentences; that federal law presumes the concurrent service of federal and state sentences based on the same course of conduct; and that the BOP is acting in violation of this court’s opinion in *United States v. Martinez,*274 F.3d 897 (5th Cir.2001), by effectively imposing more than the “total punishment” allowed by an upward departure from the sentencing range in his federal case.

Falcetta raised his contentions about the district court’s intent and the legal presumption of concurrent sentences in his first § 2241 petition. *Falcetta,*155 Fed. Appx. at 762. The instant petition is an abuse of the writ to the extent it raises issues already decided. *See Jennings v. Menifee,*214 Fed.Appx. 406, 407 (5th Cir. 2007).

Falcetta raises his contention about BOP’s alleged noncompliance with this court’s *Martinez*opinion for the first time on appeal. We do not consider Falcetta’s claim. *See Leverette. v. Louisville Ladder Co.,*183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999); *Varnado v. Lynaugh,*920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991).

Falcetta’s IFP motion is DENIED and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 n. 24 (5th Cir.1997); 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         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  filing  of the
Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the  Quarter  Ended  September  30, 2008 (the
"Report") by National Coal Corp. ("Registrant"),  each of the undersigned hereby
certifies that:

         1.       to the best of our  knowledge,  the Report fully complies with
                  the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       to the best of our knowledge, the information contained in the
                  Report  fairly  presents,   in  all  material  respects,   the
                  financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.

Date:  November 17, 2008                /S/ DANIEL A. ROLING
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Daniel A. Roling
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  November 17, 2008                /S/ MICHAEL R. CASTLE
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Michael R. Castle
                                        Chief Financial Officer