alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go

to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 1 9

- BG

- 5 7

IN RE DAVID A. WALKER

201 8 D DN 2 7 1

A Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg istration No. 4 2 069 5

BEFORE: Beckwith and McLeese

, Associate Judge s , and Nebeker, Senior Judge

.

O R D E R

(FILED

– April 11 , 201 9 )

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey

suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction for a peri od of

one year ; this court’s February 15

, 2019

, order suspending respondent and directing

him to show cause why reciprocal discipline of a one

- year suspension with a fitness

requirement should not be imposed ; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel

regarding reciprocal disci pline ; and it appearing that respondent has failed to file

either a response to this court’s show cause order or an affidavit as required by D.C.

Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that David A. Walker is hereby suspended from the practice of

law in the District of Columbia for a period of one year with reinstatement contingent

on a showing of fitness. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010) ; In re Fuller

, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal

discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatem ent the period of

respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C. Bar

R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit.

P ER CURIAM
#### Leslie Allen ACHTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harley G. LAPPIN, Director; James N. Cross, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 10-7171.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 28, 2010.

Leslie Allen Achter, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Leslie Allen Achter, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 *&*Supp.2010) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Achter v. Lappin,*No. 2:10-cv-00025-REM-JSK, 2010 WL 3277866 (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 16, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and *703legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
# Stakeholder Notifications

## Breadcrumb

-  Newsroom 
-                       Notice to Stakeholders                  

Stakeholder Notifications

### By Date (1)

                      - 2019(1)

### By Program/Office (1)

                      - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)(1)

### By Initiatives (0)

### By Region (4)

                      - (-)Midwest Regional Office (MWRO)(1)
                      - Northeast Regional Office (NERO)(1)
                      - Southeast Regional Office (SERO)(1)
                      - Western Regional Office (WRO)(1)

### By Language (1)

                      - English(1)

Reset

USDA Invests in Customer Service, Modernization Projects for SNAP 

USDA today announced $5 million for investments in customer service projects to improve and modernize application processing in SNAP.  

Page updated: February 25, 2021
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Domingo CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-14318

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 30, 2014.

Linda Julin McNamara, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Jay Carl Taylor, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.

Domingo Castro, USP Tucson, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

*873Before PRYOR, MARTIN and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sylvia A. Irvin, counsel for Domingo Castro in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Castro’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Carl Spana, President and Chief Executive Officer of Palatin Technologies, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2014 of Palatin Technologies, Inc. (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Palatin Technologies, Inc.








Dated: October 9, 2014





/s/ Carl SpanaCarl Spana, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>   1
                  EXHIBIT 23.1 - CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP


                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-3 No. 333-43807, Form S-3 No. 333-23745 and Form S-3 No. 333-53807) of 
National TechTeam, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses and in Registration 
Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-04731 and Form S-8 No. 333-04733) pertaining to 
the National TechTeam, Inc. 1989 Amended and Restated Employees' 
401(k)/Profit-Sharing Plan and Trust of our report dated February 23, 1999, 
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of National TechTeam, 
Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 
1998.


                                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Detroit, Michigan
March 30, 1999
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 

OF MARYLAND 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS 

OF MARYLAND 

Petitioner, 

Misc. Docket AG No.110 

v. September Term, 2016 

KELLY GARNER KILROY 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

This matter came before the Court on the Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent filed 

by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and the Respondent, Kelly Gamer Kilroy, 

pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-736, in which the Respondent admits that she violated Rules 1.15(a) 

& (c) and 8.4(c) & (d) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court, having 

considered the Petition, it is this 18th day of May , 2017, 

ORDERED, that Respondent, Kelly Garner Kilroy, be and she hereby is disbarred from 

the practice of law in the State of Maryland, effective June 19, 2017; and it is further 

ORDERED, that, effective June 19, 2017, the Clerk of the Court shall remove the name 

Kelly Gamer Kilroy from the register of attorneys in this Court, notify the Respondent in 

accordance with Maryland Rule 19-742 (a)(1), and comply with Maryland Rule 19-761. 

/s/ Clayton Greene Jr. 

Senior Judge
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3727]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

ACTION: Cancellation of Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Options for 
Acquisition of the Advanced Targeting Pod and Advanced Technology FLIR 
Pod (ATP/ATFLIR) meeting scheduled for January 26, 2001, was not held.

    Dated: February 2, 2001.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-3727 Filed 2-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Joseph C. Cahill, Director and CFO of PowerCold Corporation (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This amended
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q /A
 of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.





Date: April 29, 2005



/s/ Joseph C. Cahill

Joseph C. Cahill

Director and CFO
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1666

To provide for the income tax treatment of certain distributions under a

governmental plan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 2, 1993

Mr. CARDIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide for the income tax treatment of certain

distributions under a governmental plan.

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISTRIBUTIONS

4 UNDER A GOVERNMENTAL PLAN.

5 If—

6 (1) during calendar years 1987, 1988, 1989,

7 and 1990, distributions were made under a govern8 mental plan (as defined in section 414(d) of the In9 ternal Revenue Code of 1986) in connection with the

10 transition to a new retirement system being estab-
2

•HR 1666 IH

1 lished by the governmental entity maintaining such

2 plan,

3 (2) one or more of the employees receiving such

4 distributions erroneously treated such distributions

5 as eligible for rollover treatment under section

6 402(a)(5) of such Code, and

7 (3) with respect to such distributions received

8 in calendar years 1987, 1988, and 1989, the Inter9 nal Revenue Service is providing relief to employees

10 who erroneously treated such distributions as being

11 so eligible,

12 the Internal Revenue Service shall provide the same relief

13 for distributions received in calendar year 1990 as is being

14 provided for distributions received in calendar years 1987,

15 1988, and 1989.

Æ
Exhibit 10.7


                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
            SCHOLASTIC CORPORATION 2004 CLASS A STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

         WHEREAS, Scholastic Corporation (the "Company") maintains the
Scholastic Corporation 2004 Class A Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan");

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Article X of the Plan, the Company reserved the
right, by action of its Board of Directors or the Human Resources and
Compensation Committee (the "Committee"), to amend the Plan from time to time;
and

         WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend the Plan.

         NOW, THEREFORE, effective May 25, 2006, the Plan is amended as follows:

                  1.       Paragraph (c) of Section 6.3 of the Plan is amended
by deleting the last sentence appearing therein.

                  2.       Except as otherwise provided herein, the Plan is
ratified and confirmed and shall continue in full force and effect.
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Quarterly Report of Wilder Richman Historic Properties
II, L.P. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Neal Ludeke, Chief Financial Officer of Wilder Richman Historic
Corporation, the general partner of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

            (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Registrant.



/s/ Neal Ludeke
----------------------------------------------
Neal Ludeke
Chief Financial Officer of Wilder Richman
Historic Corporation, general partner of Registrant
October 20, 2004
MAYOR, DAY, CALDWELL & KEETON, L.L.P.
700 LOUISIANA, SUITE 1900
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-2778

January 31, 1997

Mr. James D. Noteware
President
Sam Houston Race Park, Ltd.
5847 San Felipe, Suite 2600
Houston, Texas 77057

         Re:     Legislative Matters

Dear Jim:

Pursuant to our discussions, this letter amends our previous letter of February
23, 1996, setting forth the terms of our engagement by Sam Houston Race Park,
Ltd. (the "Race Park") to coordinate its legal, political and legislative
efforts relating to gaming and related matters which might impact the Race
Park.  The fee of $10,000 per month which was set out in such letter is
hereby amended to $25,000 per month for the months of January through May,
1997.

In all other respects, the terms and conditions of the February 23, 1996 letter
shall remain in full force.  If this letter accurately reflects your
understanding of the change in fees which we discussed, please so indicate by
signing and returning the enclosed copy of this letter.

Jim, thank you again for your confidence.  We are pleased at the significant
progress we have all made since the inception of this project, and are
anxious to tackle the monumental problems remaining to achieve our goal.

Sincerely,

/S/ J. KENT FRIEDMAN
J. Kent Friedman


Accepted and agreed to:

/S/ JAMES D. NOTEWARE
James D. Noteware
President, Sam Houston Race Park, Ltd.
```

[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-32207]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-40,333]

Lynchburg Foundry Company, Radford, VA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on November 5, 2001 in response to a worker petition 
which was filed on October 30, 2001 on behalf of workers at Lynchburg 
Foundry Company, Radford, Virginia. The subject firm is a subsidiary of 
Intermet Corporation.
    The petitioning group of workers is subject to an ongoing 
investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued (TA-W-
40,060). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve 
no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of December 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-32207 Filed 12-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

November 6, 2017

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Thursday, November 30, 2017

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will consider and act upon the following in open session: *Secretaryof Labor v. The American Coal Company,*Docket No. LAKE 2011-701 (Issuesinclude whether on remand the Judge erred by not adequately explaining thebasis for the assessed penalty amounts.)

 

 

Any person attending this meeting who requires specialaccessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters,must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.  Subject to 29 C.F.R. §2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO 

MEETING:                             1-(866)867-4769

                                                Passcode:678-100

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                           1,008
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,749
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,800)
<INVENTORY>                                     70,181
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               113,718
<PP&E>                                          89,570
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,507
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 210,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,484
<BONDS>                                        103,291
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   210,217
<SALES>                                        300,839
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               300,839
<CGS>                                          178,657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  178,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,521
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,414
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,385
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,029
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,029
<EPS-BASIC>                                      7,029
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    7,029


</TABLE>
. 390 3F Foreign Moving Expenses |_OMBNo. 1545-0062
orm

> Attach to Form 1040. 1990
Department of the Treasury Attachment
Internal Revenue Service » See separate Instructions. Sequence No. 63.

Name(s) shown on Form 1040

Your social security number

1 City and country in which your old workplace was located P ooo... 2.02... eeceee cece eee ee -

2_City and country in which your new workplace is located >

Moving Expenses

Section A.—Transportation of Household Goods

3 Transportation and storage for household goods and personal effects 3
‘Section B.— Expenses of Moving From Old To New Home
4 Travelandlodgingnotincludingmeals. . . . . ......... L4
5 totameas ..........,.., Lal | |
6 Multiply line 5 by 80% (.80) 6
7_Add lines 4and6. A 7
Section C.—Pre-move Househunting Expenses and Tem porary Quarters (for ony
90 days In a row after getting your job)
8 Pre-move travel and lodging not including meals . | &
9 Temporary quarters expenses not including meals 9
10 Total meai expenses for both pre-move househunting
andtemporaryquartes. . . 2 2... 2... 10
11 Multiply line 10 by 80% (.80) . it
12_Add lines 8, 9, and 11 . 12
Section D.—Qualified Real Estate Expenses
13 Expenses of (check one): a im) selling or exchanging your old home; or
oO it renting, settling an unexpired lease . 3
14 Expenses of (check one): a buying your new home; or
b if renting, getting a new lease 14
Dollar Limits
15 Entertheamountfromline12 . . . 15
16 Enter the smaller of line 15 or $4,500 ($2,: 250 it married filing a separate return,
and at the end of 1990 you lived with your spouse who also started work auring
1990) . see Se 16
17 Add lines 13, 14, and 16 17
18 Enter the smatier of line 17 or $6, 000 ($3, 000 it married ‘fling a a separate return, and at the end of 1990
you lived with your spouse who also started work during 1990) eee ee ee ee LB
19 Add lines 3, 7, and 18 19
20 Amount of expenses allocable to excluded income or housing costs (see Instructions) 20
21 Subtract line 20 from line 19. This is your moving expense deduction. Enter here and on Schedule A (Form
1040), line 19. (Note: Any payments your employer made for any part of your move (including the value of
any services furnished in kind) should be included on your Form W-2. Report that amount on Form 1040,
line 7. See Reimbursements in the Instructions.). ee ‘css Las

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions.

80.8. Governent Printing Officer 190-265-223

Form 3903F (1990)
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50128 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. TERRY CHARLES CARROLL, also known as Terry Carroll , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:18

- CR

- 23

- 5

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Terry Charles Carroll appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine . He asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea

. Becau se Carroll did not object to the magistrate judge’s report recommending the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea , our review is for plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n , 79 F.3d 1415,

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 8, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50128 Document: 00515445181 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2020No . 19

- 50128 19

- 50128

2 1420

- 23, 1428

- 29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds , 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ; see also Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) (setting forth the requirements for showing plain error)

. However, in this case, the standard of review is not determinative as Carroll’s arguments still fail even under the abuse of discretion standard applied to preserved

errors. United States v. Carr , 740 F.2d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 1984) (noting that district court’s have “broad discretion” with respect to motions to withdraw a guilty plea).
W e consider the totality of circumstances, including the seven factors enumerated in United States v. Carr , in evaluating the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea

. See id. at 343

- 44. T he district court considered each of the seven factors and found that all of them weighed against allowing Carroll to withdraw his guilty plea. We see no clear or obvious error or abuse of discretion in the district court ’ s decision

. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135; Carr, 740 F.2d 344; see also United States v. Lord , 915 F.3d 1009, 1013

- 17 (5th Cir.) , cert. denied , 140 S. Ct. 320 (2019). AFFIRMED. Case: 19-50128 Document: 00515445181 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2020