alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated September 25, 2000, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on October 3, 2000, (65 FR 59018), Chattem Chemicals, Inc., 3801 St. Elmo Avenue, Building 18, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37409, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed below: Drug
ScheduleN-Ethylamphetamine (1475)
I4-Methoxyamphetamine (7411)
I2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine (7396)
IDifenoxin (9168)
IMethylphenidate (1724)
IIPentobarbital (2270)
IISecobarbital (2315)
IIDiphenoxylate (9170)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
II
 The firm plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances to produce products for distribution to its customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Chattem Chemicals, Inc. to manufacture the listed controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Chattem Chemicals, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. This investigation included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the 
                    ( print page 10322)
                    company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed above is granted. Dated: January 25, 2001. Laura M. Nagel, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 01-3750 Filed 2-13-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13505

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KELVIN LARON HOWARD, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-00026-JRH-BKE-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-13505 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13505

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. On October 23, 2023, Kelvin Laron Howard, pro se, filed a 

notice of appeal designating “the order” denying his motion to dismiss the criminal prosecution against him for lack of jurisdiction. 

However, the district court had not resolved, or even addressed, 

that motion at that time. On November 30, 2023, the district court 

entered an oral order denying the motion. 

Howard’s notice of appeal was premature, as he cannot appeal an expected or contemplated order. See Fed. R. App. P. 

3(c)(1)(B); Bogle v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, 

661 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Rule 3(c) requires that a notice of appeal designate an existent judgment or order, not one that is merely expected or that is, or should be, within the appellant’s contemplation when the notice of appeal is filed.”). Because the district court 

had not resolved Howard’s motion to dismiss, or otherwise entered any appealable order, when Howard filed his notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bogle, 162 F.3d at 661 

(dismissing premature appeal of sanctions order because “the notice of appeal in this case does not confer jurisdiction over a sanctions order that was entered almost two months after the notice of 

appeal was filed”); McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465, 1474 (11th 

Cir. 1986) (“[W]e cannot find the [appellant] to have intended her 

notice of appeal to constitute an appeal from the order of permanent injunction, as that order had not yet been entered when her 

USCA11 Case: 23-13505 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 2 of 3
23-13505 Opinion of the Court 3

notice of appeal was filed.”); see also United States v. Gulledge, 739 

F.2d 582, 584 (11th Cir. 1984) (noting that the general rule that an 

appeal may be taken from only a final judgment “has been stringently applied in criminal prosecutions”); United States v. Curry, 760 

F.2d 1079, 1079 (11th Cir. 1985) (“In a criminal case the final judgment means the sentence.”). 

No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies 

with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all 

other applicable rules. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13505 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 3 of 3
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE EMPLOYMENT AND NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENT
 RD
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 1.
    
    Effective on the date hereof, the Agreement is amended as follows:
   Date of Termination
 Date of Termination
  Additional Payments Specified Employee Interest




---



##### 



Delayed Payment Date
 2.
    
    In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.3.
    
    This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and
all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 TechTeam Global, Inc.By:
    /s/ Michael SosinTitle: Vice President, General Counsel/s/ Margaret M. LoeblMargaret M. Loebl 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7143

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREGORY E. GRANTHAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:12-cr-00103-JFM-3; 1:15-cv-03229-JFM)

Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory E. Grantham, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, 

United States Attorney, Kathleen O’Connell Gavin, Jefferson 

McClure Gray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory E. Grantham seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Grantham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                   NANOPIERCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                         COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                    (Unaudited)

                                   Three Months Ended         Nine Months Ended
                                        March 31,                 March 31,
                                        ---------                 ---------
                                    2003         2002         2003         2002
                                ------------  -----------  -----------  -----------
<S>                             <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>
Net loss                        $  (988,300)  (1,176,888)  (2,862,530)  (3,518,009)
                                ============  ===========  ===========  ===========

Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding      63,464,958   55,748,652   60,548,492   55,723,095

Common equivalent shares
  representing shares issuable
  upon exercise of outstanding
  options and warrants                    -            -            -            -
                                ------------  -----------  -----------  -----------
                                 63,464,958   55,748,652   60,548,492   55,723,095
                                ============  ===========  ===========  ===========

Net loss per share,
  basic and diluted             $      (.02)        (.02)        (.05)        (.06)
                                ============  ===========  ===========  ===========
</TABLE>



Stock  options,  warrants  and convertible preferred stock are not considered in
the  calculations  for  those  periods  with  net  losses  as  the impact of the
potential  common  shares  (approximately  15,984,376  at  March  31,  2003  and
9,987,661  shares  at  March  31, 2002) would be to decrease net loss per share.


<PAGE>
663 S.E.2d 37

#### In the Matter of Howard HAMMER, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 12, 2008.

ORDER

JEAN H. TOAL, C.J.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) petitions the Court to place respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 17, RLDE, of Rule 413, SCACR. In addition, ODC requests the Court appoint an attorney to protect respondent’s clients’ interests pursuant to Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent’s license to practice law in this state is suspended until further order of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that H. Patterson McWhirter, Esquire, is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent’s client files, trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office account(s) respondent may maintain. Mr. McWhirter shall take action as *414required by Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to protect the interests of respondent’s clients. Mr. McWhirter may make disbursements from respondent’s trust account(s), escrow accounts), operating account(s), and any other law office accounts) respondent may maintain that are necessary to effectuate this appointment.

This Order, when served on any bank or other financial institution maintaining trust, escrow and/or operating accounts of respondent, shall serve as an injunction to prevent respondent from making withdrawals from the account(s) and shall further serve as notice to the bank or other financial institution that H. Patterson McWhirter, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court.

Finally, this Order, when served on any office of the United States Postal Service, shall serve as notice that H. Patterson McWhirter, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court and has the authority to receive respondent’s mail and the authority to direct that respondent’s mail be delivered to Mr. McWhirter’s office.

This appointment shall be for a period of no longer than nine months unless request is made to this Court for an extension.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             713
<SECURITIES>                                     3,861
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,809
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,926)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         133,857
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,768)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 242,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        129,660
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         41
<COMMON>                                           134
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,366
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   242,500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,908
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,453
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   547
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,204
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    271
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                271
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       271
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
****Exhibit 32.1 - Officer Certification****
**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 Annual Report of Health Outcomes Management, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended February 29, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of, each of the undersigned officers of Health Outcomes Management, Inc. certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's knowledge:

   (1) The Form 10-KSB 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Health Outcomes Management, Inc. as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Form 10-KSB.

Date:  May 28, 2004

   /s/ Peter J. Zugschwert   Peter J. ZugschwertChairman and PresidentChief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Secion 906, has been provided to Health Outcomes Management, Inc. and will be retained by Health Outcomes Management, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 167 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 167

 To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate maximum-age entry 
  requirements for Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Duncan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate maximum-age entry 
  requirements for Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 3307 of 
title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (c) 
through (e) and inserting the following:
    ``(c) The Secretary of the Interior may fix a minimum-age 
requirement for original appointment to the United States Park Police.
    ``(d) The head of an agency may fix a minimum-age requirement for 
original appointment to a position within such agency as a law 
enforcement officer or firefighter, as defined under section 8331.
    ``(e) The head of an agency may fix a minimum-age requirement for 
original appointment to a position within such agency as a law 
enforcement officer or firefighter, as defined under section 8401.''.

                                 <all>
```
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 Quarterly Report  of Wilder Richman Historic Properties II, L.P. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Paul Richman, Chief Executive Officer of Wilder Richman Historic Corporation, 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/ Richard Paul Richman
 Richard Paul Richman
 Chief Executive Officer of Wilder Richman
 Historic Corporation, general partner of the Registrant
 September 13, 2011
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

May 24, 2019

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 5, 2019

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: McNary v. Alcoa World Alumina, LLC, Docket No. CENT 

2015-279-DM. (Issues include whether the Judge erred by 

determining that the complainant had failed to establish 

interference with his rights under the Mine Act.)

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
Exhibit 11

AMENDED

                        SHOWPOWER, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER COMMON SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Three Months                             Six Months
                                                                     Ended June 30,                          Ended June 30,
                                                           ------------------------------            ------------------------------
                                                                1998             1997                   1998                1997
                                                           -------------     ------------            -----------         ----------
<S>                                                          <C>              <C>                    <C>                 <C>       
Net income (loss)                                            $ (754,193)      $  364,145             $ (668,812)         $  157,737

Weighted average
    shares outstanding                                        2,113,074        1,913,080              2,013,074           1,536,080

Dilutive effect after application
    of treasury stock method

    Restricted shares                                                 -           96,154                      -              48,077
    Employee stock options                                            -                -                      -                   -

Shares used in calculating
    diluted income per share                                  2,113,074        2,009,234              2,013,074           1,584,157

Basic net income per share                                   $    (0.36)      $     0.19             $    (0.33)         $     0.10

Diluted net income per share                                 $    (0.36)      $     0.18             $    (0.33)         $     0.10


PRO FORMA:

Pro forma net income                                         $   84,058       $  225,189             $   64,728          $   83,187

Weighted average
    shares outstanding                                        2,113,074        1,913,080              2,013,074           1,536,080

Dilutive effect after application
    of treasury stock method

    Restricted shares                                           106,251           96,154                104,634              48,077
    Employee stock options                                       18,445                -                  9,222                   -

Shares used in calculating
    diluted income per share                                  2,237,770        2,009,234              2,126,930           1,584,157

Basic net income per share                                   $     0.04       $     0.12             $     0.03          $     0.05

Diluted net income per share                                 $     0.04       $     0.11             $     0.03          $     0.05

</TABLE>