alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1201.161 Action by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; judicial review. ( a ) *Time limit for determination.* In cases in which an appellant petitions the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission) for consideration of the Board's decision under 5 U.S.C. 7702(b)(2), the Commission will determine, within 30 days after the date of the petition, whether it will consider the decision.
( b ) *Judicial review.* The Board's decision will become judicially reviewable on: ( 1 ) The date on which the decision is issued, if the appellant does not file a petition with the Commission under 5 U.S.C. 7702(b)(1); or
( 2 ) The date of the Commission's decision that it will not consider the petition filed under 5 U.S.C. 7702(b)(2).
( c ) *Commission processing and time limits.* If the Commission decides to consider the decision of the Board, within 60 days after making its decision it will complete its consideration and either: ( 1 ) Concur in the decision of the Board; or
( 2 ) Issue in writing and forward to the Board for its action under § 1201.162 of this subpart another decision, which differs from the decision of the Board to the extent that the Commission finds that, as a matter of law: ( i ) The decision of the Board constitutes an incorrect interpretation of any provision of any law, rule, regulation, or policy directive related to prohibited discrimination; or
( ii ) The evidence in the record as a whole does not support the decision involving that provision.
( d ) *Transmittal of record.* The Board will transmit a copy of its record to the Commission upon request.
( e ) *Development of additional evidence.* When asked by the Commission to do so, the Board or a judge will develop additional evidence necessary to supplement the record. This action will be completed within a period that will permit the Commission to make its decision within the statutory 60-day time limit referred to in paragraph (c) of this section. The Board or the judge may schedule additional proceedings if necessary in order to comply with the Commission's request.
( f ) *Commission concurrence in Board decision.* If the Commission concurs in the decision of the Board under 5 U.S.C. 7702(b)(3)(A), the appellant may file suit in an appropriate United States district court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         73,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  225,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (28,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    260,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               973,000
<PP&E>                                         1,365,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 590,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,065,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,473,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,342,000
<COMMON>                                       13,586,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (18,909,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,065,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               520,000
<CGS>                                          424,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,984,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               351,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             114,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,929,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,929,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,929,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-03-032 May 27, 2003

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 e-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Roger Hannah (404) 564-4417 

 

NRC TO HOLD MEETING JUNE 6 AT NFS TO DISCUSS

 READINESS REVIEW ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED PROJECT BLEU

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with officials of Nuclear Fuel Services,

Incorporated, in Erwin, Tennessee, on June 6 to present the results of an NRC inspection team’s

Operational Readiness Review of a new Uranyl Nitrate Building associated with the company’s

proposed Blended Low-Enriched Uranium (BLEU) project.

NFS has proposed to build a facility at its Erwin, Tennessee site which would take surplus

high-enriched uranium from the Department of Energy and downblend it into low-enriched uranium

which would be fabricated into fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors. The NRC has made no

decision at this time on the NFS request.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m. at the NFS Training Center in Erwin, 

located on Jackson Love Highway near Exit 15 on Interstate 181. The meeting is open to

observation by the public, and NRC officials will be available prior to its conclusion to answer

questions from interested observers. 

The NRC is conducting the Operational Readiness Review inspection of the UNB building

from June 2 through June 6. 

#
#### Alfred L. Lyon, Respondent, v. Fieldgren Realty Corp. et al., Appellants. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Henry Blum, Appellant.

Action to recover broker’s commissions. The order appealed from grants plaintiff's motion to examine before trial a witness who was the agent of the defendant corporation, a son of its president, and owner with another of all its stock, at the time the transactions involved in the action took place. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, the examination to proceed on five days’ notice. *(Mazzetti Gorp.*v. *Blank [No. 2],*231 App. Div. 737; *Laruffa*V. *Astarita,*264 App. Div. 785; *Farber*v. *BeBruin,*253 App. Div. 909; *Be Luca*v. *Kerwin,*239 App. Div. 850; *Amsterdam*V. *Mandel,*273 App. Div. 895.) Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur. [190 Mise. 700.] [See *post,*p. 1008.]

The indictment in four counts charges the defendant (1) with the crime of manslaughter in the first degree, in that he procured the miscarriage of one Rosalind Finkelstein by the nse of medicines and drugs, resulting in her death; (2) with the crime of manslaughter in the first degree in that he procured the same miscarriage by the use of instruments, resulting in her death; (3) with the crime of abortion in that he supplied and administered drugs and medicines and used an instrument to procure the said miscarriage; and (4) with the crime of conspiracy in that he and others conspired,- combined and confederated to commit acts injurious to public health, the public morals, and for the perversion and obstruction of justice and of the due administration of the laws. At the close of the People's case the court dismissed the first count (manslaughter) and struck out that part of the third count (abortion) charging the use of medicines and drugs, thereby limiting that count to the use of an instrument. Defendant was acquitted of the charge of manslaughter (second count) and convicted of abortion (third count) and conspiracy (fourth count). Judgment of the County Court of Queens County reversed on the law and the facts, the indictment dismissed, defendant discharged and bail exonerated. Defendant’s guilt of the crimes of abortion and conspiracy was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the conspiracy count is fatally defective in that it does not contain a statement of the act or acts constituting the crime. Nor does the evidence show that the abortion, if any, was committed in Queens County. Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Advisory Committee for Engineering (1170).                    

*Date/Time:*                         November 3, 2004, 8 a.m.-6 p.m.; November 4, 2004, 8 a.m.-3 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         Holiday Inn Arlington—Ballston, 4610 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Open.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Deborah Young, Administrative Officer, Office of the Assistant Director for Engineering 703-292-8301.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice, recommendations and counsel on major goals and policies pertaining to engineering programs and activities.                    

*Reason for Late Notice:*                         Due to administrative complications.                    

*Agenda:*                         The principal focus of the forthcoming meeting will be on strategic issues, both for the Directorate and the Foundation as a whole. The Committee will also address matters relating to the future of the engineering profession and engineering education.                    

Dated: October 25, 2004.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 04-24115  Filed 10-27-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### Cardell VAN MATHIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.Q. HICKMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-16824.

D.C. No. CV-00-00611-GEB/JFM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Cardell Van Mathis appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing without leave to *654amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights by opening his legal mail outside his presence and disclosing its contents to the defendants in another one of Mathis’s pending civil actions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Because Mathis may be able to spell out a claim, we reverse the district court’s denial of leave to amend, and also vacate the district court’s determination on qualified immunity. *See Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc).

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNASA Langley Research Center tethered balloon systemsThe NASA Langley Research Center tethered balloon system operations are covered in this report for the period of 1979 through 1983. Meteorological data, ozone concentrations, and other data were obtained from in situ measurements. The large tethered balloon had a lifting capability of 30 kilograms to 2500 meters. The report includes descriptions of the various components of the balloon systems such as the balloons, the sensors, the electronics, and the hardware. Several photographs of the system are included as well as a list of projects including the types of data gathered.Document ID19870009503Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsOwens, Thomas L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Storey, Richard W.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Youngbluth, Otto*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateFebruary 1, 1987Subject CategoryGeophysicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-83260NAS 1.15:83260Accession Number87N18936Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 665-45-20Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19870009503.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00176

- CR

Quinn Ford, Jr.

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 297th District Court

o f Tarrant County (1267457D )

May 28 , 2015

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DI STRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot

______________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
#### § 177.30 Review of final determinations.

Any party-at-interest listed in § 177.22(d) may seek judicial review of a final determination within 30 days after publication of such determination in the Federal Register, and may seek judicial review of a refusal to issue a final determination within 30 days after such refusal. The Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review a final determination or a refusal to issue a final determination made under this subpart.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0210

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DARIN PAUL GUCKEEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 20, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 15 2024

08/15/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0210
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

     We hereby certify that the accompanying Report of Harris Preferred Capital
Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Harris
Preferred Capital Corporation.

                                        /s/ Paul R. Skubic
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Paul R. Skubic
                                        Chief Financial Officer

                                        /s/ Janine Mulhall
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Janine Mulhall
                                        Chief Financial Officer

Date March 29, 2006

     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 Section 906, has been provided to Harris Preferred
Capital Corporation and will be retained by Harris Preferred Capital Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Registrant's  unaudited interim  financial  statements for the nine month period
ended  September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to those
financial
statements.
</LEGEND> <CIK> 0000895993
<NAME> RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST II
         <S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                10,605,822<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,426
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,515,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          496,516<F2>
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,018,933<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,515,449
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               345,424
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               173,591
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                171,833
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            171,833
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   171,833
<EPS-BASIC>                                      730
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      730

<FN>
<F1>Investments in power project partnerships.
<F2>Includes $461,053 due to affiliates.
<F3>Represents Investor Shares of beneficial interest
in Trust with capital accounts of $12,099,987 less
managing shareholder's accumulated deficit of $81,054.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Ruth Gessin et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Gessin Co., Respondents, v. Link-Flex Products, Inc., et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — • Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement Nos. 333-78295, 333-48154, 333-48156, 333-65130, 333-83818, 333-99385, 333-113738 and 333-136549 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 24, 2006, (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatoryparagraph relating to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 47, *Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations – an Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143*, effectiveDecember 25, 2005), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of BUCA, Inc. and subsidiaries for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

March 13, 2007
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.2014 Originating goods. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart and General Note 35, HTSUS, a good imported into the customs territory of the United States will be considered an originating good under the PANTPA only if: ( a ) The good is wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties;
( b ) The good is produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties and: ( 1 ) Each non-originating material used in the production of the good undergoes an applicable change in tariff classification specified in General Note 35, HTSUS, and the good satisfies all other applicable requirements of General Note 35, HTSUS; or
( 2 ) The good otherwise satisfies any applicable regional value content or other requirements specified in General Note 35, HTSUS, and satisfies all other applicable requirements of General Note 35, HTSUS; or
( c ) The good is produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties exclusively from originating materials.
### §4333. Expenses of committees payable from Senate contingent fund

When any duty is imposed upon a committee involving expenses that are ordered to be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate, upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the committee charged with such duty, the receipt of such chairman for any sum advanced to him or his order out of said contingent fund by the Secretary of the Senate for committee expenses not involving personal services shall be taken and passed by the accounting officers of the Government as a full and sufficient voucher; but it shall be the duty of such chairman, as soon as practicable, to furnish to the Secretary of the Senate vouchers in detail for the expenses so incurred.

(Mar. 3, 1879, ch. 183, 20 Stat. 419; June 10, 1921, ch. 18, title III, §304, 42 Stat. 24; June 22, 1949, ch. 235, §101, 63 Stat. 218.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 69 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

1949—Act June 22, 1949, inserted "for committee expenses not involving personal services" after "Secretary of the Senate", and omitted the requirement that the Secretary of the Senate file the vouchers with the General Accounting Office.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Transfer of Functions

Act June 10, 1921, transferred powers and duties of Comptroller, six auditors, and certain other officers of the Treasury to General Accounting Office.