alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3090]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6942-1]


Notice of Open Meeting--The Environmental Financial Advisory 
Board Cost-Effective Environmental Management Workgroup

    The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Financial 
Advisory Board, Cost Effective Environmental Management Workgroup (CEM) 
will hold an open meeting in Washington, DC on March 5, 2001. The 
meeting will be held at the National Press Club, 13th Floor in the 
Zenger Room, 14th and F Streets, NW, Washington, DC. The meeting will 
begin at 9:00 am and end at approximately 4:00 pm.
    Over the past decade, public utilities have accepted the challenge 
to become more efficient and cost effective. This meeting will address 
industry-wide programs that have been initiated as well as specific 
programs of individual utilities. The meeting will consist of a group 
of respected panelists who will share their perspectives on new and 
innovative public sector initiatives helping to lower the life cycle 
cost of environmental protection. Self-assessment, peer review, 
benchmarking, consultant evaluations, mock completion, and 
certification and accreditation will be described as tools that can be 
used to improve competitiveness. The meeting will provide an overview 
for the Environmental Financial Advisory Board as to the status of the 
industry and possible areas where policy recommendations to the EPA may 
be appropriate.
    The meeting is open to the public, but seating is limited. To 
confirm your participation or get additional information, please 
contact Vanessa Bowie, U.S. EPA on 202 564-5186.

    Dated: January 26, 2001.
Joseph Dillon,
Acting Comptroller.
[FR Doc. 01-3090 Filed 2-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### Frederick R. SUMMEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Al HAYNES, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 07-6953.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 23, 2008.

Decided: May 5, 2008.

Frederick R. Summey, Appellant pro se. Alan Gordon McGonigal, Office of the United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Frederick R. Summey filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), seeking to challenge his sentence in light of *Shepard v. United States,*544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005). The district court construed the § 2241 petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Summey asserts that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of his detention and contends that his claims should be considered under § 2241 pursuant to the savings clause in § 2255. Because Summey does not meet the standard set forth in *In re Jones,*226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir.2000), for application of the savings clause, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.*
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
     10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
     report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2006-026
     (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements
     made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
     made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
     fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
     respects;

5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
     for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
     assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
     securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
     Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
     been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
     disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
     described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
     10-K.

In giving the certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

            JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents

Date:  August 29, 2006


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum


Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
SCPW-22-0000375

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

DENNIS VELASCO, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE THOMAS A.K. HAIA, 

Judge of the District Court of the First Circuit, 

State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CASE NO. 1DRC-22-0001832)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Dennis Velasco’s

petition for writ of mandamus, filed on June 6, 2022, and the

record, petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable

right to the requested relief and that he lacks alternative means

to seek relief. Nor has petitioner shown that Judge Haia

exceeded his jurisdiction, committed a flagrant and manifest

abuse of discretion, or refused to act on a subject properly

before the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty

to act. Petitioner may seek dismissal or other relief in the

first district court, see District Court Rules of Civil Procedure

(DCRCP) Rule 12, and may raise Judge Haia’s order denying

petitioner’s request for a jury trial as an issue on appeal, see

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-22-0000375

20-JUN-2022

09:13 AM

Dkt. 4 ODDP
Hawai#i Revised Statutes § 641-1(a). The issuance of a writ of

mandamus is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary

authority of the lower court, nor is it meant to serve as a legal

remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure. An extraordinary

writ is thus not warranted. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200,

204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (explaining that a writ of mandamus

is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the

petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief

and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged

wrong or obtain the requested action; such a writ is meant to

restrain a judge who has exceeded the judge’s jurisdiction, has

committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has

refused to act on a subject properly before the court under

circumstances in which the judge has a legal duty to act). 

Accordingly, 

It is ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus is

denied.

It is further ordered that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus without

payment of the filing fee.

It is finally ordered that the clerk of the appellate

court shall transfer the petition for writ of mandamus to the

first district court to be filed as a motion under DCRCP Rule 12

in Case No. 1DRC-22-0001832.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 20, 2022.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Lee ECHOLS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10853

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 1, 2010.

Ramona C. Albin, William G. Simpson, Joyce White Vance, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William Earl Smith, The Wess Law Firm, P.C., Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Walter Lee Echols pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the district court sentenced him to a prison term of 72 months. He appeals his sentence, presenting two arguments for reversal. First, in determining his offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court erred in enhancing the base offense under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A)— which calls for a two-level increase in the base offense level if the subject firearm was stolen — because the Government failed to establish that the firearm was stolen. Second, but for the enhancement, the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence.

Whether a firearm was “stolen” for purposes of § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) is a question of fact that we review for clear error only. *See United States v. Walker,*490 F.3d 1282, 1299 (11th Cir.2007). However, “it is not necessary to decide guidelines issues or remand cases for new sentence proceedings where the guidelines error, if any, did not affect the sentence.” *United States v. Keene,*470 F.3d 1347, 1349 (11th Cir.2006). Instead, we affirm a district court’s sentence if the record includes evidence that the district court would have imposed the same sentence even if it had not applied the enhancement.

In this case, we do not decide whether the district court clearly erred in applying an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) because any error would be harmless. At the sentencing hearing, the district court stated that it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had found the stolen-firearm enhancement to be inapplicable. In that circumstance, Echols’s resulting sentencing range under the Guidelines would have been 51-63 months’ imprisonment, making his sen*352tence of 72 months a 9-month upward variance from the high end of that range.

As the district court correctly noted, Echols has an extensive criminal history and has demonstrated a high likelihood of recidivism. An upward variance provided was needed to promote respect for the law, to provide general deterrence, and to protect the public from Echols’s criminal behavior. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2), (3). Therefore, the imposed sentence was sufficiently justified, and any error in imposing the stolen-firearm enhancement was harmless. *See United States v. Irey,*612 F.3d 1160, 1187 (11th Cir.2010) (en banc); *Keene,*470 F.3d at 1349.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Prospectuses
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (Numbers 33-68510,
33-67618,  33-57246,  33-52920,  33-42841,  33-39166,  and  33-32673),  and  the
Registration  Statements  on Forms S-8 (Numbers  33-63220,  33-63218,  33-41712,
33-13416,  33-21545,  33-82788, 33-63106, and 33-60789), of Epitope, Inc. of our
report  dated  October  31,  1997,  except  for Note 3 as to  which  the date is
December 1, 1997, appearing on page 24 of this Form 10-K.




Price Waterhouse LLP

Portland, Oregon
December 23, 1997
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, Daniel Generelli, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Baynon
     International Corporation;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
     light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
     misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

     a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
         material information relating to the registrant, including its
         consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
         entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
         being prepared;

     b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
         procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
         annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)  presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
         of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of
         the Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, base on
     our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
     committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
     equivalent functions):

     a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
         controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
         identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
         internal controls; and

     b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
         employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
         controls.


Date: November 9, 2007


/s/ DANIEL GENERELLI
-----------------------------
Daniel Generelli
Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)

                                       12
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"cmoran","title":"April 2024 Activity Report\u00a0 - Federal Maritime Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"8ccGZTN86d\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/articles\/april-2024-activity-report\/\">April 2024 Activity Report\u00a0<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/articles\/april-2024-activity-report\/embed\/#?secret=8ccGZTN86d\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“April 2024 Activity Report\u00a0” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"8ccGZTN86d\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"STATEMENTS & RELEASES Testimony of Chairman Maffei before Congress Prepared statement of Daniel B. Maffei submitted for inclusion in the record for hearing \u201cReview of Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request for Coast Guard and Maritime Programs, Pt. 1: Maritime Administration and Federal Maritime Commission, held by the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, April […]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/seal_final_sm.jpg","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":293}
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of AudioStocks, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Luis J. Leung, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify the
following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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/ Luis J.
Leung


Luis J.
Leung


Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





April 15,
2008
#### Ira Lee JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security *, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-1147-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 7, 2008.

*77Ira L. Jackson, Binghamton, NY, pro se.

Glenn T. Suddaby, United States Attorney, Northern District of New York, Syracuse, NY; Stephen P. Conte, Special Assistant United States Attorney, New York, NY; Barbara L. Spivak, Chief Counsel-Region II, Karen M. Ortiz, Assistant Regional Counsel, Officer of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT: Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Hon. B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges, Hon. J. GARVAN MURTHA,** District Judge.

*

 Pursuant to Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Commissioner of Social Security Michael Astrue is automatically substituted for former Commissioner of Social Security Jo Anne Barnhart as the Defendant-Appellee in this case.

**

 The Honorable J. Garvan Murtha, United States District Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Plaintiff-Appellant Ira Lee Jackson appeals a June 6, 2005 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Thomas J. McAvoy, Judge), granting summary judgment to the Commissioner on Jackson’s Social Security claim, and a February 14, 2006 order dismissing his discrimination claim. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

We review orders granting summary judgment *de novo*and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP,*321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). In order to challenge a Social Security benefits determination in the federal courts, an aggrieved individual must first obtain a “final decision of the Commissioner.” *See*42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A final decision is rendered “when the Appeals Council either considers the application on the merits or declines a claimant’s request for review, and not simply when the ALJ issues its decision.” *Pollard v. Halter,*377 F.3d 183, 191 (2d Cir.2004). Here, the uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that Jackson did not seek review of the ALJ’s decision before the Appeals Council; therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the Commissioner on Jackson’s Social Security benefits claim.

The order dismissing Jackson’s discrimination claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed *de novo. See Binder & Binder PC v. Barnhart,*481 F.3d 141, 148-149 (2d Cir.2007). The district court properly dismissed the discrimination claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, “because Title II of the ADA is not applicable to the federal government.” *See Cellular Phone Taskforce v. FCC,*217 F.3d 72, 73 (2d Cir.2000).

This Court has considered Jackson’s remaining claims and finds them to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.
#### James HALL, N.C. Clint Moser, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SECRETARY OF STATE, State of ALABAMA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-15214

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 12, 2013.

David I. Schoen, David I. Schoen, Attorney at Law, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

*963James W. Davis, Misty Shawn Fairbanks Messick, John Cowles Neiman, Jr., Attorney General’s Office, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the District Court’s denial of appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction 1 on the grounds that the injury to the public from the issuance of an injunction would far outweigh any injury appellants might suffer.

AFFIRMED.

1

. The District Court also denied appellants’ motion for a temporary restraining order. That motion sought the same relief as the motion for a preliminary injunction; the two motions therefore merged.