alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Broadcasting Board of Governors

# SUMMARY:

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (Board) will be meeting at the time and location listed above. The Board will vote on a consent agenda consisting of the minutes of its August 30, 2017 meeting, a resolution honoring 35th Anniversary of Voice of America Broadcasts in Amharic-Language, and a resolution proposing 2018 BBG Board schedule. The Board will receive a report from the Chief Executive Officer and Director of BBG.

                        This meeting will be available for public observation via streamed webcast, both live and on-demand, on the agency's public Web site at                         *www.bbg.gov.*                         Information regarding this meeting, including any updates or adjustments to its starting time, can also be found on the agency's public Web site.                    

                        The public may also attend this meeting in person at the address listed above as seating capacity permits. Members of the public seeking to attend the meeting in person must register at                         *https://bbgboardmeetingnovember2017.eventbrite.com*                         by 12:00 p.m. (ET) on November 14. For more information, please contact BBG Public Affairs at (202) 203-4400 or by email at                         *pubaff@bbg.gov.*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.

Oanh Tran,

Managing Director.

[FR Doc. 2017-24643 Filed 11-8-17; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Passenger Vessel Operators","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"HPjiFp2B1l\"><a href=\"\/resources-services\/passenger-vessel-operators\/\">Passenger Vessel Operators<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/resources-services\/passenger-vessel-operators\/embed\/#?secret=HPjiFp2B1l\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Passenger Vessel Operators” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"HPjiFp2B1l\" 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"}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"License Revocations and Surrenders – October 26, 2018","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"lflCvM7Wbe\"><a href=\"\/oti\/2995-2\/\">License Revocations and Surrenders – October 26, 2018<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/2995-2\/embed\/#?secret=lflCvM7Wbe\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“License Revocations and Surrenders – October 26, 2018” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"lflCvM7Wbe\" 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"}
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 10, 2009 

d0603 

Order 

 

June 10, 2009 

138422 

OTTAWA COUNTY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v SC: 138422 

 COA: 276669 

Ottawa CC: 05-053720-CK 

POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF 

MICHIGAN, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 11, 2008 

judgment 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.
#### STATE ex rel. SPRAGUE, Co. Atty., v. ONE PIN BALL MACHINE STYLED “SEA BREEZE” et al.

No. 34207.

Dec. 12, 1950.

225 P. *2d 370.*

I. C. Sprague, Co. Atty., McCurtain County, of Idabel, for plaintiff in error.

Ed Shipp, of Idabel, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

The issues involved in the case at bar are controlled by State of Oklahoma ex rel. I. C. Sprague, County Attorney, v. One Pin Ball Machine, Styled “Nevada”, No. 34205, 203 Okla. 652, 225 P. 2d 369, this day decided and the opinion therein disposes of the issues herein.

The cause is reversed and remanded in accordance (with the directions in said cause No. 34205.

*654DAVISON, C.J., ARNOLD, V. C. J., and CORN, GIBSON, LUTTRELL, HALLEY, JOHNSON, and O’NEAL, JJ., concur.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.2


                
                                        Corporate Office
1340 Treat Blvd., Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA  94597
Phone 925.948.3642
Fax 925.947.0914


						
	TO:	Sonny Pennington
	FROM:	George Yuhas
	DATE:	March 1, 2022
	RE:	Modification and Extension of February 27, 1998 Employment Agreement and Non-Competition Agreement, as amended June 2, 2003, April 10, 2006, July 1, 2008, March 30, 2012, March 1, 2014, and March 1, 2016, and March 1, 2018 and March 1, 2020 (this "Amendment")




Dear Sonny:


Per recent discussions, this Amendment modifies and extends your February 27, 1998 Employment Agreement, as amended, most recently on March 1, 2020 (as amended, the "Employment Agreement") and your February 27, 1998 Non-Competition Agreement, (as amended, the “Non-Competition Agreement"), as follows:


1)During the period from March 1, 2022 through March 31,, 2023 effective as of March 1, 2022 (the "Term"), you will continue in your role as "Director of Special Projects" for the Corporate Division of Central Garden & Pet Company (the "Company"); provided, however that the Company may terminate your employment upon ninety (90) days' written notice. In the event of such termination, you shall be entitled to twelve (12) months' severance payments. You may terminate the employment relationship upon ninety (90) days notice.


2)Effective as of March 1, 2022, your base salary will be $52,000 annually. You will be expected to work at a level consistent with historical practice (including travel time and Board Meeting time and shall not be required to relocate or commute on a regular basis from Madison, GA).


3)The Non-Competition Agreement will terminate two years after the end of your employment with the Company.


4)This Amendment will be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Georgia.


5)Except as herein modified (or modified by the June 2, 2003 amendment, the April 10, 2006 amendment, the July 1, 2008 amendment, the March 30, 2012 amendment, the March 1, 2014 amendment, or the March 1, 2016 amendment or the March 1, 2018 amendment or the March 1, 2020 amendment), the terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement and Non-Competition Agreement will remain in full force and effect.






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date first written above.


















									
	/s/ George Yuhas		/s/ Brooks M. Pennington, III
	George Yuhas		Brooks M. Pennington, III
	General Counsel		
	Central Garden & Pet
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Kirk JONES, Shanika Natasha Jones, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 07-12585.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 4, 2008.

*949Rick D. Collum, The Collum Law Firm, P.C., Moultrie, GA, for Defendant-Appellant Marvin Kirk Jones.

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Briefly stated, Defendants in the criminal law appeal raise these issues:

> (1) Was the district court required, as a matter of law, to acquit all three of the co-defendants when it acquitted one co-defendant of the alleged conspiracy?

> (2) Was the evidence insufficient to support Defendant Shanika Jones’s conviction?

> (3) Is the failure of the court reporter to transcribe recorded telephone conversations a substantial and significant omission from the trial record?

> (4) Did the district court commit plain error when it admitted extrinsic fact evidence for the jury’s consideration in evaluating Defendants’ alleged mens rea?

> (5) Did the district court err when it failed to identify and address an alleged conflict of interest involving Defendant Shanika Jones’s counsel?

We answer the questions, “No.”

The fifth question, in effect, seems to contain a challenge to the *conviction*based on a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel which we decline to decide on direct appeal. We note that neither Shanika Jones nor her counsel ever objected to or made any motion or did anything to draw the district court’s attention to the possibility of a conflict of interest. The matter was apparently drawn to the district court’s attention after the verdict and after the trial by a communication to the judge from the co-defendant. At sentencing, the judge asked some questions about a possible conflict. Ms. Jones’s lawyer gave an explanation for why she felt she had no conflicted interests. The district court then stated that there did not appear to be a conflict and went forward. No one has argued that the purported conflict impacted on counsel’s work at sentencing. Nor was a motion made to the district court (before this appeal) to set aside the conviction on account of a conflict. On this record, the district court did not commit plain error or even abuse its discretion. Considering the need for other evidence, we leave the issue of ineffectiveness at trial to be possibly decided by means of collateral review. Today’s decision is intended to be without prejudice to a later action for collateral review.

AFFIRMED.
#### Christopher Leonard OLSZOWY; Anna Olszowy, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. BERKELEY COUNTY SUMMARY COURTS; Wayne Dewitt, Sheriff, Berkeley County; Richard Driggers, Major, Defendants—Appellees, and Joseph Stephen Schmutz; Berkeley County Sheriff's Department; Officer of the Solicitor Ninth Judicial Circuit; Berkeley County Clerk of Court; Goose Creek Magistrate; South Carolina Bar Association; John H. Price, Jr.; J. Westcoat Sandlin; O. Grady Query; Michael P. O’Connell; Natalie Parker Bluestein; Constance Mills; Mary P. Brown; Scarlett A. Wilson; John Church, Solicitor, Defendants.

No. 10-7231.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 2, 2010.

Christopher Leonard Olszowy, Anna Olszowy, Appellants Pro Se. Harry V. Ragsdale, Corrigan & Chandler, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher and Anna Olszowy seek to appeal the district court order denying their motion for appointment of counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. *8531221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order the Olszowys’ seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Further, we deny their motion for a change of venue and to suspend briefing. 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.*
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     In  connection  with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q/A of
Paragon  Financial  Corporation  (kna New Market  Latin  America,  Inc.) for the
quarter  ended March 31,  2005,  I, Aubrey  Brown,  Chief  Executive  Officer of
Paragon  Financial  Corporation  (kna New Market Latin  America,  Inc.),  hereby
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

a)   such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Paragon Financial  Corporation (kna
     New Market Latin America, Inc.) for the Quarter ended March 31, 2005, fully
     complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
     Exchange Act of 1934; and

b)   the  information  contained  in such  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q/A of
     Paragon Financial Corporation (kna New Market Latin America,  Inc.) for the
     quarter ended March 31, 2005,  fairly presents,  in all material  respects,
     the financial  condition  and results of  operations  of Paragon  Financial
     Corporation (kna New Market Latin America, Inc.)





                            /s/ Aubrey Brown
                                ------------
                                Aubrey Brown, Chief Executive Officer


Date:    October 10, 2008



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Paragon Financial  Corporation (kna New Market Latin America,  Inc.)
and will be  retained by Paragon  Financial  Corporation  (kna New Market  Latin
America,  Inc.) and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### Juan Fernando RODAS, Luz Marietta Pineda, Mateo Rodas, Juana Rodas, Petitioners, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

No. 07-15738

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 21, 2008.

Mario F. Matus-Sequeira, Mario F. Matus Law Offices, Miami, FL, for Petitioners.

R. Alexander Goring, David V. Bernal, USDOJ, Oil, Lance L. Lolley, Cindy S. Ferrier, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioners Juan Fernando Rodas and Luz Marietta Pineda, and their children, Mateo Rodas and Juana Rodas (collectively “Petitioners”), through counsel, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of them motion to reopen them removal proceedings for being time-barred pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). In their brief, Petitioners assert that the deadline for filing their motion to reopen should have been equitably tolled because their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision was dismissed due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and they filed their motion to reopen within 90 days of discovering such ineffective assistance. Petitioners also contend that the BIA’s denial of their motion to reopen violated their right to due process.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen proceedings for abuse of discretion.1*Abdi v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,*430 F.3d 1148, 1149 (11th Cir.2005). This review is limited to determining whether the BIA has exercised discretion and whether “the matter of exercise has been arbitrary or capricious.” *Id.*(quotation omitted).

An alien may file a motion to reopen if the motion states new facts that would be proven at a hearing and if those facts are supported by affidavits or other evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). A motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the *933date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” 8 C.F.R § 1003.2(c)(2).2 In *Abdi,*we considered whether the alien’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, filed after the 90-day deadline in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), could be equitably tolled. 430 F.3d at 1148-49. We concluded that the 90-day filing deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional, and, therefore, it is not subject to equitable tolling.” *Id.*at 1150.

Having reviewed the record in this case, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen as time-barred; nor did the BIA deny Petitioners due process of law.

PETITION DENIED.

1

. The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen is within the discretion of the BIA. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

2

. The regulations provide for four statutory exceptions to the 90-day filing deadline, but these exceptions are not at issue or relevant here. *See*8 C.F.R § 1003.2(c)(3).
**Exhibit 32.2 —    Section 1350 Certification**     I, Andrew A. Campbell, certify that:      (1)     the    Form 10-Q    of Pactiv Corporation for the period ended March 31, 2008,    (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    § 13(a) or § 15(d) of the Securities    Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and      (2)     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all    material respects, the financial condition and results of    operations of Pactiv Corporation for the period then ended. /s/  ANDREW    A. CAMPBELL    Andrew A. Campbell    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer     Date May 6, 2008     This certification accompanies this report pursuant to    Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall    not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of    2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of    Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as    amended. 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6174

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JULIAN TRAVON SPENCER, a/k/a Julian Lamar

Traffix,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CR-98-138-MU, CA-01-495-3-2-MU)

Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 15, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julian Travon Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. C. Nicks Williams, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Julian Travon Spencer seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Spencer has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322

(2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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