alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §343c–2. Addition of lands; Jackson Laboratory

The Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, accept title to certain land in the town of Bar Harbor, Hancock County, Maine, held by the Jackson Laboratory, a nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, said land being more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at a stone bound set in the ground in the southerly side of State Highway Numbered 3 leading from Bar Harbor to Seal Harbor, said stone bound also marking the northeasterly corner of land of the United States of America and the northwesterly corner of land of the Jackson Laboratory;

thence north 72 degrees 58 minutes east and following the southerly side of State Highway Numbered 3, 80 feet to a stone bound set in the ground;

thence south 32 degrees 13 minutes east 762.5 feet to an iron pin set in the ledge;

thence north 88 degrees 16 minutes east 270.54 feet to a stone bound set in the ground in the southerly side of the old Morrell Park Racetrack;

thence north 61 degrees 56 minutes east 673.2 feet to an iron pipe driven in the ground, said iron pipe also being in a northwesterly line of land of the United States of America;

thence south 24 degrees 30 minutes west and always following a northwesterly line of land of the United States of America, 149 feet to an iron pipe driven in the ground;

thence south 64 degrees 05 minutes west and always following a northwesterly line of land of the United States of America, 577 feet to a stone bound set in the ground;

thence south 78 degrees 50 minutes west and always following a northerly line of land of the United States of America, 115 feet to an iron pin in a large boulder;

thence north 84 degrees 00 minutes west and always following a northerly line of land of the United States of America, 357 feet to an iron pin in the ledge;

thence north 22 degrees 40 minutes west and always following a northeasterly line of land of the United States of America, 460 feet to an iron pin in the ledge;

thence north 14 degrees 05 minutes west and always following an easterly line of land of the United States of America, 281.7 feet to the point of beginning, and containing 4.828 acres.

Said land, upon acceptance of title thereto, shall become a part of the Acadia National Park.

(Pub. L. 90–262, §1, Mar. 4, 1968, 82 Stat. 40.)
CASE No. 14-14-00530 CR TRIAL COURT No. CR 300078 CHRISTOPHER WESLEY PARKS, Petitioner IN THE COURT OF
vs. CRIMINAL APPEALS THE STATE OF TEXAS, Respondent AUSTIN, TEXAS. MOTION TO SUSPEND TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.3 TO: THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: 

### Comes Now, Christopher Wesley Parks, petitioner, pro-se, and files his motion requesting the Court of Criminal Appeals to suspend the rule 9.3 Number of 

### Copies, and allow him to submit with his petition for discretionary review 

## FILEDIN the original and acarboncopyof thesame. He shows tl^lg^ui0p^Bij^f^Mow:i'rig>|^ Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.3 Number of Copies.



### — AbelAcosia,Clerk A party must file the original and 11 copies of any document addressed to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Criminal Appeals.

****** The petitioner Christopher W. Parks is a incarcerated prisoner that does 

### not have access to a copymachine, and he request that the Court of Criminal suspend the rule 9.3 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure and allowhim to sub mit his original, and one-carbon copy of his petition for discretionary review. PRAYER 

### The petitioner prays that the Honorable Court will grant his motion, and suspend the rule 9.3 for 11-copies, and allow him to sumit his original and a carbon copy of his petition for post discretionary review. 

# M^L 2015. .JSSS^ SE? (1 of 2)RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED 

# &u£>£Lj>«

CHRISTOPHER WESLEY PARKS #1933982 WYNNE UNIT 810 FM 2821 HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS. 77349. INMATES DECLARATION 

### I, Christopher Wesley Parks, Id. #1933982, swear under the penalty of perjury 

### that the forgoing information is true, and correct.. 

# A^uS{36) : 2015. ^
CHRISTOPHER WESLEY PARKS

(2 of 2)
#### Rachel R. Leaman v. Harry O’R. Schell (Appeals Nos. 1 and 2.)

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
### §409d. Employees of Washington Association of New Jersey

Employees of the said Washington Association, who were, prior to March 2, 1933, charged with the care and development of the said Ford House and its museum and other effects, may, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, hereafter be employed by the National Park Service in the administration, protection, and development of the said park without regard to the laws of the United States applicable to the employment and compensation of officers and employees of the United States.

(Mar. 2, 1933, ch. 182, §5, 47 Stat. 1422.)
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

REKALA MORRISON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-909

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed November 22, 2017. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Kelly P. Butz, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm Rekala Morrison's judgments and 

sentences and the revocation of her probation. However, the order of revocation of 

probation entered on February 21, 2017, nunc pro tunc to February 16, 2017, does not 

identify the conditions found to be violated. We remand solely for entry of a corrected 

 

1Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 
- 2 -

revocation order specifying the conditions of probation that Ms. Morrison violated. See

Huggins v. State, 216 So. 3d 785, 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Greene v. State, 919 So. 2d 

684, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ("A proper order of revocation will identify the specific 

conditions of probation violated by the defendant." (citing Greer v. State, 831 So. 2d 

1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002))).

Affirmed; remanded with directions. 

KELLY, CRENSHAW, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 306 

Reaffirming the commitment to media diversity and pledging to work with 

media entities and diverse stakeholders to develop common ground solutions to eliminate barriers to media diversity. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 

Ms. ROSEN (for herself and Mr. RUBIO) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

RESOLUTION 

Reaffirming the commitment to media diversity and pledging 

to work with media entities and diverse stakeholders 

to develop common ground solutions to eliminate barriers 

to media diversity. 

Whereas the principle that an informed and engaged electorate is critical to a vibrant democracy is deeply rooted 

in our laws of free speech and underpins the virtues on 

which we established our Constitution, ‘‘in Order to form 

a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 

Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the 

general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 

ourselves and our Posterity . . . .’’; 

Whereas having independent, diverse, and local media that 

provide exposure to a broad range of viewpoints and the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 306 IS 

ability to contribute to the political debate is central to 

sustaining that informed engagement; 

Whereas it is in the public interest to encourage source, content, and audience diversity on our Nation’s shared telecommunications and media platforms; 

Whereas the survival of small, independent, and diverse 

media outlets that serve diverse audiences and local 

media markets is essential to preserving local culture and 

building understanding on important community issues 

that impact the daily lives of residents; 

Whereas research by the American Society of News Editors, 

the Radio Television Digital News Association, the Pew 

Research Center, and others has documented the continued challenges of increasing diversity among all types of 

media entities; 

Whereas with increasing media experience and sophistication, 

it is even more important to have minority participation 

in local media to ensure a diverse range of information 

sources are available and different ideas and viewpoints 

are expressed to strengthen social cohesion among different communities; and 

Whereas the constriction in small, independent, and diverse 

media outlets and limited participation of diverse populations in media ownership and decisionmaking are combining to negatively impact our goal of increasing local 

civic engagement and civic knowledge through increased 

voter participation, membership in civic groups, and 

knowledge of local political and civil information: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 306 IS 

1 (1) reaffirms its commitment to diversity as a 

2 core tenet of the public interest standard in media 

3 policy; and 

4 (2) pledges to work with media entities and di5 verse stakeholders to develop common ground solu6 tions to eliminate barriers to media diversity. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
### §4017. Investigations

#### (a) Authority to make investigations

The Secretary may make such investigations as the Secretary determines necessary to—

(1) carry out the Secretary's responsibilities under this chapter; and

(2) determine whether any person has engaged in any act or practice which constitutes a violation of the provisions of this chapter.

#### (b) Oaths and affirmations

For the purpose of investigations under subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary may administer oaths and affirmations, subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, take evidence, and require the production of any books, papers, and documents which are relevant to the inquiry. The attendance of such witnesses and the production of any such records may be required from any place in the United States.

#### (c) Court orders

In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued under this section by any person, the Secretary may invoke the aid of any court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such investigation or proceeding is carried on, or where such person resides or has his business, to require the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, and documents. Such court may issue an order requiring such person to appear before the Secretary to produce records or to give testimony relating to the matter under investigation.

(Pub. L. 99–659, title II, §218, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3731.)
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40007 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FLORENCIO URIBE-RAMOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

---------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-97-CR-196-1

---------- August 7, 1998 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam *

Court-appointed counsel for Florencio Uribe-Ramos has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief as required by Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Uribe-Ramos has not responded.
Our inde pendent review of the brief and record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. S ee 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and statement of earnings of Gerber Scientific, Inc.
as of and for the year ended April 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                          22,954
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  121,494
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     86,472
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               251,962
<PP&E>                                         165,341
<DEPRECIATION>                                  66,121
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 572,836
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,424
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,780
<OTHER-SE>                                     234,132
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   572,836
<SALES>                                        610,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               610,726
<CGS>                                          368,862
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  562,224
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,090)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,975
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,875
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,875
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 99895 / April 3, 2024

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-21355

In the Matter of

Chatham Asset Management, LLC 

and Anthony Melchiorre,

Respondents.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER APPOINTING 

TAX ADMINISTRATOR

On May 4, 2022, the Commission issued an Omnibus Order Directing the Engagement of 

Two Tax Administrators for Appointment on a Case-By-Case Basis in Administrative 

Proceedings that Establish Distribution Funds (the “Omnibus Order”).1 The Omnibus Order 

engaged Miller Kaplan Arase LLP and Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLP to serve as the 

Commission’s tax administrator (“Tax Administrator”), for selection and appointment on an 

individual case basis, for calendar years 2022 through 2024 in administrative proceedings where 

the distribution fund may incur tax-related obligations as a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) 

under the Department of the Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1(c). 

The Director of the Division of Enforcement is authorized to appoint a Tax Administrator 

pursuant to the Omnibus Order.2 The Commission staff has requested the appointment of 

Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLP as the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced 

proceeding.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the Omnibus Order, Heffler, Radetich & 

Saitta, LLP is appointed as the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced proceeding.

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.3

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary 

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 94845 (May 4, 2022).

2

 See Delegation of Authority to Director of the Division of Enforcement, Securities Act Rel. No. 10900 (Dec. 10, 

2020).

3

 17 C.F.R. § 200.30-4(a)(21)(ii).
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA- 2012 - 1038 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM166AD

A320 - 53 - 1060 , R03 --- 1/20/12 A320 - 53 - 1060, R02 --- 11/30/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
**HECO Exhibit 23.2**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.: 

We consent to incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement Nos. 333-111073, 333-111073-01, 333-111073-02, and 333-111073-03 on Form S-3 of Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc., Maui Electric Company, Limited, and HECO Capital Trust III, respectively, ofour reports dated February 20, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of capitalization of Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the relatedconsolidated statements of income, retained earnings, changes in common stock equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingas of December 31, 2008, and our report dated February 20, 2009 on the related financial statement schedules, which reports are incorporated by reference and appear, respectively, in the 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of HawaiianElectric Industries, Inc. 

Our reports refer to the adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes*, in2007. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Honolulu, Hawaii 

February 27, 2009
EXHIBIT 99

UNDERTAKINGS

For the purposes of complying with the amendments to the rules governing Form S-8 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), the Registrant
hereby undertakes as follows, which undertaking shall be incorporated by reference into Registrant's Statement on Form S-8 Nos. 333-04273 (filed May 22, 1996); 333-175155 (filed December 2, 1996);
333-41447 (filed December 4, 1997); 333-92531 (filed December 10,1999); 333-36252 (filed May 4, 2000); and 333-04273 (filed July 21, 2000):



---

QuickLinks
### **CHAPTER 61—INTERJURISDICTIONAL FISHERIES**

Sec.
4101.
Congressional statement of purposes.
4102.
Definitions.
4103.
Apportionment.
4104.
State projects.
4105.
Property.
4106.
Reports to Congress.
4107.
Repealed.
2

MEM 

# • ("When a defendant pleads guilty pursuant to a plea agreement containing a sentencing recommendation, and the district court accepts the proffered guilty plea, the district court retains wide discretion in imposing sentence." (footnote omitted)); see also Sandy v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 435, 440 & n.1, 935 P.2d 1148, 1151 & n.1 (1997) (noting that "plea agreements may not invade the traditionally judicial function of what penalty to impose" and, therefore, trial judge may reject sentence bargains that purport to guarantee defendants certain sentence (citation omitted)). Second, Jefferson argues that the district court abused its discretion in rejecting the plea agreement by not following the sentence recommendation in the agreement. He further contends that the district court should have set forth its reasoning for rejecting the plea agreement. Lastly, he asserts that the district court should have given him an opportunity to withdraw the guilty plea when it rejected the recommended sentence. We disagree. Jefferson conflates a rejection of the plea agreement—the district court's refusal to accept a defendant's guilty plea entered pursuant to an agreement, see, e.g., Sparks v. State, 104 Nev. 316, 322-24, 759 P.2d 180, 184-85 (1988)—with a rejection of the sentencing recommendation made in the plea agreement. Although the district court did not follow the parties' sentencing recommendation, it did not reject the plea agreement; the district court accepted Jefferson's guilty plea made pursuant to the plea agreement. The language of the guilty plea agreement did not bind the court to impose the recommended sentence nor did it condition Jefferson's plea on the district court's imposition of the recommended sentence. It specifically stated that the court was not obligated to accept the parties' sentencing recommendation. Jefferson's

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A

MEMJ.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A

ffl 3

reliance on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 for the proposition that a defendant must be afforded an opportunity to withdraw his plea if the district court does not follow the sentencing recommendation is misplaced because the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not apply in Nevada's
state courts. See FRCP 1(a)(1). Moreover, Nevada's legislature specifically rejected this proposition by repealing the statute that allowed this procedure, see 1993 Nev. Stat., ch. 279, § 1, at 828-29, and we decline Jefferson's invitation to hold that a defendant must be allowed to withdraw his plea if the district court declines to follow the parties' sentencing recommendation.

Having considered Jefferson's contentions and concluded that they lack merit, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

f`-- 1 4AA ..eg.0641 , J. Hardesty

Parraguirre V 

# c k. Cherry

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Nguyen & Lay Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk