alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4484]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Chemical Warfare 
Defense will meet in closed session on April 10, 2001, and April 24, 
2001, at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201. The Task 
Force will assess the possibility of controlling the risk and 
consequences of a chemical warfare (CW) attack to acceptable national 
security levels within the next five years.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these 
meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will assess current 
national security and military objectives with respect to CW attacks; 
CW threats that significantly challenge these objectives today and in 
the future; the basis elements (R&D, materiel, acquisition, personnel, 
training, leadership) required to control risk and consequences to 
acceptable levels, including counter-proliferation; intelligence, 
warning, disruption; tactical detection and protection (active and 
passive); consequence management; attribution and deterrence; and 
policy. The Task Force will also assess the testing and evaluation 
necessary to demonstrate and maintain the required capability and any 
significant impediments to accomplishing this goal.
    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been 
determined that these Defense Science Board meetings, concern matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly these meetings will 
be closed to the public.

    Dated: February 16, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-4484 Filed 2-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2346

To ensure that consumer credit reports include information on any overdue

child support obligations of the consumer.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 8, 1993

Ms. WOOLSEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To ensure that consumer credit reports include information

on any overdue child support obligations of the consumer.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCLUSION IN CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTS

4 OF INFORMATION ON OVERDUE CHILD SUP5 PORT OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONSUMER.

6 (a) PROVISION TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES

7 OF INFORMATION ON OVERDUE CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGA8 TIONS OF ABSENT PARENTS.—Section 466(a)(7) of the

9 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(7)) is amended—

10 (1) by striking ‘‘will’’ and inserting ‘‘shall’’;
2

•HR 2346 IH

1 (2) by striking ‘‘upon the request of such agen2 cy’’;

3 (3) by striking ‘‘, and (C)’’ and all that follows

4 through ‘‘State’’; and

5 (4) by striking ‘‘minor’’ from 466(e) and delet6 ing ‘‘at the option’’ and all that follows through the

7 word ‘‘section.’’

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

9 this section shall take effect on the 1st day of the 1st cal10 endar quarter that begins on or after the date of the en11 actment of this Act.

Æ
* 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 forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41052 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. LUIS TORRES Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CR-403-1 Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Lui s Torres has moved for leave to withdrawand has filed a brief in accordance with Andersv. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Torres has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 22, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2131 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2131

   To amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 to 
require that testimony before the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
                    Commission be given under oath.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 1993

  Mr. McHugh introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 to 
require that testimony before the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
                    Commission be given under oath.

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

SECTION 1. TESTIMONY BEFORE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT 
              COMMISSION.

    (a) Oaths Required.--Section 2903(d)(1) of the Defense Base Closure 
and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-
510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new sentence: ``All testimony before the Commission at a public hearing 
conducted under this paragraph shall be presented under oath.''.
    (b) Application of Amendment.--The amendment made by this section 
shall apply with respect to all public hearings conducted by the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
The Honorable Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2540

___________

Bobby G. Rost, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Western District of Missouri.

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: August 7, 1998

 Filed: August 17, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bobby G. Rost appeals from the district court&s denial of his motion under 28 1

U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm. 

Rost was convicted of a number of offenses, including the use and carrying of

a firearm in relation to drug offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The district

court imposed a 60-month prison sentence on the weapon charge, consecutive to the
-2-

prison sentence he received on the other charges. After an unsuccessful direct criminal

appeal, see United States v. Rost, No. 93-3972, 1994 WL 175911 (8th Cir. May 11,

1994) (unpublished per curiam); United States v. Akers, 987 F.2d 507 (8th Cir. 1993),

Rost brought this section 2255 motion challenging, under Bailey v. United States, 516

U.S. 137 (1995), the section 924(c) jury instruction given at his trial. 

We note that Rost procedurally defaulted this claim by failing to object at trial

and to raise the issue on direct appeal. See Velasquez v. United States, 131 F.3d 766,

766-67 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). After careful review of the record and the parties&

briefs, we conclude that Rost has not established that with appropriate instructions and

“in light of all the evidence it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would

have convicted him.” See Bousley v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 1604, 1611 (1998)

(internal quotations omitted). We therefore affirm the decision of the district court.

See id. at 610-12 (concluding petitioner must establish “actual innocence” where no

cause existed for his procedural default). 

The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000440

16-MAR-2020

09:26 AM
#### IN RE EARL B.

*James Jude Connolly,*supervisory assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

The petition by the respondent Earl B. for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 121 Conn. App. 269 (AC 30491), is denied.

*922
      *Melissa L. Streeto,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided July 1, 2010
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

HOLIFIELD, ATTANASIO, and HACKEL

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Jeremiah R. MEDLIN

Private First Class (E-2), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 202200004

_________________________

Decided: 27 April 2022

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

Military Judge: 

Geoffrey G. Hengerer

Sentence adjudged 20 September 2021 by a special court-martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting 

of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment:

reduction to E-1, confinement for 2 months, and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Lieutenant Commander W. Scott Stoebner, JAGC, USN
United States v. Medlin, NMCCA No. 202200004

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.1

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
EX-10.9





 Exhibit 10.9 
  





 
 June 23, 2016 
 Nasym
Afsari 
 General Counsel 
 Re: Executive Compensation
Package 
 Dear Nasym: 
 The board of directors (the
“Board”) of Montrose Environmental Group, Inc (the “Company”) has approved an executive compensation package for you which is summarized herein. In addition to company benefit plans offered to you from time to time by the
Company, you shall be eligible for the following compensation package: 
 Base Compensation: $225,000 per year 

Cash Bonus Program: The cash bonus program you are eligible for has been separately approved by the Board and all payments thereunder remain subject to
Board approval. 
 IPO/Change in Control Cash Bonus Amount: $500,000 shall be payable to you in cash upon the occurrence of a change in control or
effectiveness of an Initial Public Offering of the Company. A change in control shall be defined as set forth in the Company’s equity incentive plan. 

Equity Incentive Award: You will be granted 6,265 new options under the Company’s equity incentive program, which shall be updated upon approval
by the Board and requisite shareholders to increase the number of options available for grant. The options shall vest over a four year period, with 50% vesting at the second anniversary of the vesting start date and the remaining 50% vesting at the
fourth anniversary of the vesting start date. The vesting start date shall be the vesting start date of options you received in 2015. The options shall fully accelerate upon a change in control of the Company (not including an Initial Public
Offering) as set forth in the Montrose Environmental Group, Inc. 2013 Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan. All options previously granted to you in 2015 shall be cancelled. Any options previously granted to you in 2014 shall remain in place,
subject to the terms thereof (including acceleration upon change of control or Initial Public Offering of the Company). 
 Severance Upon Termination
Without Cause Following a Change in Control: If you are terminated without cause or terminate your employment for good reason within twelve (12) months following a change in control of the Company, you shall be entitled to receive severance
in the amount of one year of your then-current base salary, which may be payable in lump sum or as continued compensation during the 12 month severance period, as determined by the Company. 

We look forward to your continued success with Montrose. 

Regards, 
 /s/ Richard Perlman 

Richard Perlman 
 Chairman of the Board 

Montrose Environmental Group, Inc. 
  

			
	 Global Headquarters    

1 Park Plaza
 Suite 1000

Irvine, CA 92614
	 	  T: 949.988.3500
  F: 949.988.3514

 info@montrose-env.com

 www.montrose-env.com
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [NAFTA-4393]

Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (P.L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance (NAFTA-TAA), an investigation was initiated on December 14, 2000 in response to a petition which was filed by the company on behalf of workers at Eel River Sawmills, Inc., Fortuna, California.

The company has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 5th day of January, 2001.

Linda Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-3289  Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


                              AVONDALE INCORPORATED
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS
                                TO FIXED CHARGES
                      (AMOUNTS IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT RATIOS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Fiscal Year Ended
                                               1998          1999          2000          2001          2002
                                              ------        ------        ------        ------        ------
<S>                                           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Fixed Charges:
   Interest expense                           $ 23.3        $ 23.0        $ 20.2        $ 20.4        $ 18.4
   Discount and expenses on sale of
      accounts receivable                        7.3           5.6           5.6           4.9           1.1
   Amortization of debt issuance costs           1.1           1.1           1.1           1.0           0.7
                                              ------        ------        ------        ------        ------
     Fixed Charges                            $ 31.7        $ 29.7        $ 26.9        $ 26.3        $ 20.2
                                              ======        ======        ======        ======        ======

Earnings
   Pretax income before
      extraordinary item                      $ 55.4        $ 16.3        $ 51.6        $  1.8        $ (0.4)
   Fixed charges                                31.7          29.7          26.9          26.3          20.2
                                              ------        ------        ------        ------        ------
     Earnings                                 $ 87.1        $ 46.0        $ 78.5        $ 28.1        $ 19.8
                                              ======        ======        ======        ======        ======

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges               2.8x          1.5x          2.9x          1.1x          1.0x
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 4.4

                        DESCRIPTION OF AXA SHAREPLAN 2006

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

             NOTE: Set forth below is an English summary of excerpts from the
             minutes of a Meeting of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Shareholders
             of AXA held on April 20, 2005. This English version is only a
             summary, and not a literal translation, of the French language
             minutes of such Meeting and has been prepared to comply with the
             requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The English
             version does not create or evidence any obligations of the
             Registrant, nor does it create rights in any person. In event of
             any inconsistency between this English language version and the
             French original, the latter will control.

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

At a Meeting of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Shareholders held in Paris,
France, on April 20, 2005 the shareholders have authorized the Management Board
(directoire) of AXA to issue shares to employees and former employees
(collectively, the "Beneficiaries") of its French and foreign subsidiaries
participating in a group savings plan of AXA. The Board's authority to issue
shares will continue in effect for 26 months from the date of the Meeting of
Shareholders. The issuance of shares will be made subject to the conditions
provided for in of Article L. 225-138-1 and L. 225-129-6 of the French
commercial code (Republic of France).

For the AXA Shareplan 2005, the nominal amount of the capital increase was
(Euro)38,601,843.00 corresponding to the immediate or deferred issuance of
16,856,700 shares. Consequently, for the Shareplan 2006 the maximum number of
shares that may be issued will not exceed a nominal value of 111,398,156.07
euros.

The subscription price will be definitively established by the Management Board.

The authorization conferred on the Management Board by the shareholders to issue
shares includes the express waiver by the shareholders, in favor of the
Beneficiaries, of their preferential right to subscribe for the shares that will
be issued.

The Management Board is granted all authority to effect the foregoing including,
without limitation, the following:

     o to determine the subscription period applicable;

     o to fix the terms and conditions of share issuances under the plan;

     o to take such actions as it considers necessary to effect any of the
       foregoing.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23--Consent of Independent Auditors

 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-19505) and in the Registration Statement (Form 
S-8 No. 333-19491) pertaining to the Prime Retail, Inc. Stock Incentive Plans 
of our report dated January 30, 1997 (except for Note 14, as to which the 
date is March 10, 1997), with respect to the consolidated financial 
statements of Prime Retail, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) 
for the year ended December 31, 1996.

 
    Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Prime Retail,
Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.
 
                                            Ernst & Young LLP
 
Baltimore, Maryland
March 26, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,780
<OTHER-SE>                                     (48,780)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
WYNONA DAVIS CARPENTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4230

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

Michael Flowers, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Wynona Davis Carpenter, pro se, Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BILBREY, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.