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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on November 1, 2000, pursuant to section                           ( print page 13084)                        6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Spray Drift Task Force has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Nations Ag II, LLC, Arlington, VA has been added as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Spray Drift Task Force intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On May 15, 1990, Spray Drift Task Force filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 15, 1990 (55 FR 27701).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 11, 2000. A notice for this filing has not yet been published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 01-5060  Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Mark Victor Dheil, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00201

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 4th District Court of Rusk County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR14

- 089 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Just ice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Mark Victor Dheil, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 8, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q/A of IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Joseph K. Jachinowski, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | such 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 such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



November 19, 2004



/s/ JOSEPH K. JACHINOWSKIJoseph K. Jachinowski Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2818 

To clarify that funding for the standard setting body designated pursuant 

to section 19(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 is not subject to the sequester. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 10, 2018 

Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. MURPHY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To clarify that funding for the standard setting body designated pursuant to section 19(b) of the Securities Act 

of 1933 is not subject to the sequester. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION. 

4 Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emer5 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a) does 

6 not apply with respect to the funding of the standard set7 ting body designated pursuant to section 19(b) of the Se8 curities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77s(b)). 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Prospero Felix ZEPEDA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-50558.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 24, 2011.

Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark Eibert, Esquire, Half Moon Bay, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*975Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Prospero Felix Zepeda appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss based on the valid appeal waiver.

Zepeda contends that the district court failed to calculate the advisory Guidelines’ range correctly and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We decline to reach this contention in light of the valid appeal waiver in Zepeda’s plea agreement. *See United States v. Bibler,*495 F.3d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir.2007).

Zepeda contends his appeal waiver is invalid for several reasons. First, he contends that the Government breached the plea agreement. This contention is belied by the record. Second, Zepeda contends that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to appeal because he was not adequately informed of the sentence he faced. The record indicates that the waiver was knowing and voluntary and that Zepeda was adequately informed. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182-84 (9th Cir.2000).

Finally, Zepeda contends that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to appeal because his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when advising him to plead guilty. The record in this case is not sufficiently developed to evaluate Zepeda’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. *See United States v. Jeronimo,*398 F.3d 1149, 1155-56 (9th Cir.2005).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 27, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 27, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0070. TYOUNE YOUNG v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 1S08CR059T
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

CERTIFIED COPY OF RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

I, Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, do hereby certify that the attached
is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the
Board of Directors of said Corporation, on the 28th day of
October, 2019, by notational vote, and that the same has not been
amended or rescinded and is now in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
subscribed my name and caused the
seal of the Corporation to be
affixed hereto, in the City of
Washington and District of Columbia,

this 28th day of October, 2019. set
(SEAL) i

086176

Executive Secretary
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

(b)(6)



RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (“FDIC”) has the authority to appoint inferior officers for the FDIC and the
authority to appoint administrative law judges pursuant to Article II of the United States
Constitution (as a Head of Department), 12 U.S.C. § 1819(a) (Fifth) (allowing the FDIC
to “appoint by its Board of Directors such officers and employees as are not otherwise
provided for in this chapter”) and 5 U.S.C. § 3105 (allowing agencies to “appoint” their
own administrative law judges).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in its capacity as a Head of
Department, the Board hereby appoints Administrative Law Judge Jennifer Whang as an
administrative law judge for the FDIC pursuant to the appointment powers granted to it
by Article II of the United States Constitution, 12 U.S.C. § 1819(a) (Fifth), and 5 U.S.C.
§ 3105,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Secretary or his designee is
instructed to certify a copy of this Resolution, to serve it on said administrative law

judge, and to post it on the FDIC’s website.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Euramax International, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending March 26, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. David Smith, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial position and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/   J. David Smith             |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| J. David  Smith                       |
| Chairman and  Chief Executive Officer |
| May 7, 2004                           |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            280164
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  280471
<CASH>                                           23398
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               14326
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           12415
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  526984
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 309259
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              68683
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  24625
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                       95055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    526984
<PREMIUMS>                                       87929
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              16453
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                1203
<OTHER-INCOME>                                    1059
<BENEFITS>                                       57700
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      40967
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6216
<INCOME-TAX>                                        53
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               6163
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6163
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .93
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  155911
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                              53402
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                 4298
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                               11520
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                 30784
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 171307
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                         (4298)
        

</TABLE>
U.S. flag
          Un sitio oficial del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos
            Así es como usted puede verificarlo
          Así es como usted puede verificarloDot gov**El .gov significa que es oficial.**
                
                Los sitios web del gobierno federal siempre usan un dominio .gov o .mil. Antes de compartir información confidencial en línea, asegúrese de estar en un sitio .gov o .mil.
          Https**Este sitio es seguro.**
                
                El **https://** medios todos los datos transmitidos son cifrados - en otras palabras, cualquier información o el historial de navegación que proporcione se transmite de forma segura.

    
          FTC: Translation Menu
  

        
EnglishFTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas **
Menú


    close


                  FTC: Main navigation (ES)
  

        
  
  Consejos para consumidores
      
    Guía para negocios
      
    Reembolsos
      
    Noticias
      
    Acerca de la FTC
      
    Buscar
        
        
        FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas

          
  
          Consejos para consumidores
      
    
              Guía para negocios
      
    
              Reembolsos
      
    
              Noticias
      
    
              Acerca de la FTC
      
    
              Buscar Cases Tagged with Appliances No results found for this tag.
  
    
    
    

  Return to top **
Menú
FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        


      Reporte las estafas
                              Reciba alertas
  
  
      FTC: Footer (es)
  

        


      Política de privacidad y noticias
| (1)   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                |   |                                              |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:        May 8, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Steven      Y. Moskowitz                 |   |
|                                |   | Steven      Y. Moskowitz                          |   |
|                                |   | Chief      Executive Officer, President, Director |   |
|                                |   | and      Principal Accounting Officer             |   |
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00158-CV

DON C. AND WYNETTE M. RUSSELL,

Appellant

v.

ROBERT B. COWARD AND COWARD LAND, LP, A TEXAS LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP,

Appellees

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. CAC-09-38903

ORDER O N M O T I O N F O R R E H E A R I N G

The Court’s judgment dated October 9, 2014, is withdrawn because it contains a 

clerical error, and the judgment dated October 30, 2014, is substituted therefor.

Appellants’ motion for rehearing is dismissed as moot. 

PER CURIAM
Russell v. Coward Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

(Chief Justice Gray concurs in the result.)

Order issued and filed October 30, 2014

Do not publish
#### Sloan Zakheim, Appellant, v Leading Insurance Services, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[24 NYS3d 623]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered November 25, 2014, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and granted defendant Leading Insurance Services, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment declaring in its favor and dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously modified, on the law, solely to declare that defendant has no obligation to indemnify plaintiff for the amount of the judgment entered in her favor against its insured in the underlying personal injury action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The complaint and the bill of particulars in the underlying action allege that plaintiff was injured at a nail salon insured by defendant when the pedicurist cut plaintiff’s foot with, as she variously described it, a razor blade, a razor-like implement, an illegal instrument or an unauthorized pedicure tool, in violation of a regulation of the Division of Licensing Services for Hairdressing and Cosmetology restricting the use of certain items in “Appearance Enhancement” (19 NYCRR 160.18). Defendant disclaimed coverage on the basis of a policy exclusion for bodily injury arising out of the violation of a statute, rule or regulation, and, in this action, established prima facie that it was not obligated to provide coverage, based on the pleadings in the underlying action *(see ABC, Inc. v Countrywide Ins. Co.,*308 AD2d 309, 310 [1st Dept 2003]). In opposition to defendant’s motion in this action, plaintiff argued that razor blades, and other sharp instruments, are not prohibited by 19 NYCRR 160.18, since the regulation only limits the use of a razor (19 NYCRR 160.18 [a] [2]), while prohibiting the use of “[c]redo knives” *{id.*subd [a] [5]). Since the implement used by the pedicurist was not a credo knife, plaintiff argued, there was no violation of the regulation, and the exclusion from coverage is not applicable. This argument directly contradicts the sworn statements in plaintiff’s verified pleadings and deposition testimony, and therefore fails to raise an issue of fact. For the same reason, the court properly rejected plaintiff’s affidavit, *455which attached a photograph of a credo knife, taken from the Internet, and stated that that image did not depict the object that cut her foot *(see Miller v Doniger,*272 AD2d 73 [1st Dept 2000]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Gische, JJ.
[No. 58044-2-I.

Division One.

August 27, 2007.]

#### Zsche E. Navarre, *Appellant,*v. The Department of Social and Health Services, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 02-2-08722-1, Theresa B. Doyle, J., entered April 3, 2006. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Becker, J.; Ellington, J., concurring separately.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

P laintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ALFREDO GODOY

- MACHUCA , AKA Alfredo Godoy, AKA Alfredo Machuca Gody,
Defendant

- Appellant

. No. 18

- 10028
D.C. No

. 2:16

- cr - 01508

- DJH

- 1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Diane J. Humetewa , District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 15 , 2019 San Francisco, California
Before: MCKEOWN and GOULD , Circuit Judges , and LASNIK, * * District Judge. Alfredo Godoy

- Ma chuca pleaded guilty to Reentry of Removed Alien pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) before a Magistrate Judge on October 31, 2017

. His plea agreement contained a waiver of his right to appeal, but it was silent as to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided b y Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUN 19 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 10028

whether his federal sentence would run concurrent with or consecutive to a state

court sentence that he was serving at the time

. On January 22, 2018 , at the beginning of his sentencing hear ing, the district court accepted his guilty plea. Godoy

- Machuca was sentenced to 63 months to run consecutive to his state

- court sentence. After the sentence was imposed , Godoy

- Ma chuca attempted to withdraw his guilty plea , stating that his defense counsel had informed him that his sentences would run concurrently . The district court did not permit him to do so

. Godoy

Machuca timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss the appeal. “A defendant’ s waiver of his appellate right s is enforceable if the language of the waiver encompasses his right to appeal on the grounds raised, and if the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made.” United States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 986 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Joyce , 357 F.3 d 921, 922 (9th
Cir. 2004) ). Godoy

- Machuca’s purported misunderstanding (which he raised after the district court accepted the plea and imposed sentence) of a potential collateral consequence of his plea agreement (which expressly disavowed any promises no t contained in writing) does not undermine the voluntary and knowing nature of the broad waiver of appeal. The waiver is valid, and we dismiss that aspect of the appeal.3 18

- 10028

Godoy

- Machuca’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel challenge s the voluntary and intelligent nature of his plea agreement. However, the record is not sufficiently developed to permit review and determination of that claim on direct appeal. 1 United States v. McKenna , 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir. 2003) ( citing
United States v. Ross , 206 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2000)).
DISMISSED

.

1 Our dismis sal is without prejudice to Godoy

- Machuca’s right to raise his ineffective assistan ce of counsel claim on habeas review.