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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1571-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Alaska (FEMA-1571-DR), dated November 15, 2004, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         December 9, 2004.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this declared disaster is now October 18, 2004, through and including October 24, 2004.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program) 

Michael D. Brown,

Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 04-27624 Filed 12-16-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS RESTATED SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF VISION TWENTY-ONE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,138,339
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,652,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,624,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,222,576
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,928,972
<PP&E>                                       8,599,925
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,475,055
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,787,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,022,201
<BONDS>                                      7,824,083
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,056
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,594,644
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,787,208
<SALES>                                      6,280,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,721,740
<CGS>                                        1,509,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,007,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,042,385
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             594,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (657,788)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (657,788)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (657,788)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 29, 2011 

p0321 

Order 

 

March 29, 2011 

142211 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142211 

 COA: 291359 

Midland CC: 08-003211-AR 

AUSTIN BOYD HAMMOND, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 12, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

ZAHRA, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
#### Ralco, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Citibank, N.A., as Successor in Interest to European American Bank, et al., Respondents.

[820 NYS2d 248]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 23, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the direct action and on the counterclaim for attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing was properly dismissed based on the language of the note at issue, which precluded any oral modifications and contained no-waiver clauses providing that defendant European American Bank “shall not, by any act, delay, omission or otherwise, be deemed to have waived any of its rights and/or remedies.” Any antecedent oral representations which vary or add to the terms of the note are barred by the parol evidence rule (SAA-A, *Inc. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,*281 AD2d 201, 203 [2001]). Furthermore, since the note required that any amendments must be in writing, oral modifications are prohibited by statute *(id,.; see*General Obligations Law § 15-301). Even assuming there was an oral modification requiring the bank to provide plaintiff Ralco with notice prior to declining to extend its line of credit postmaturation, there was no consideration for any such modification and it would not be enforceable.

Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim for attorneys’ fees. Defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their counterclaim by submitting the note and accompanying security agreement, each of which contain a provision requiring plaintiffs to reimburse defendants for reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in the collection of amounts owed under the note. In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. While plaintiffs maintain that a stipulation resolving their liability for sums advanced under the note also resolved the issue of their liability for defendants’ attorneys’ fees, plaintiffs failed to submit the stipulation or any evidence indicating its terms. Therefore, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the stipulation relieved them of their obligations to reimburse defendants for reason*302able attorneys’ fees incurred collecting amounts owed under the note. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Arl Young, plaintiff in error.

Indictment for illegal sale of intoxicating liquor. Defendant convicted. Error to the County Court of Ford county; the Hon. S. Ludlow, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1922.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed July 10, 1922.

Rehearing denied October 4, 1922.

Schneider & Schneider and E. J. Pacey, for plaintiff in error. Claude M. Swanson, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Heard

delivered the opinion of the court.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-329 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Acquisition and Cross-Servicing 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and JORDAN 

Signed at Tampa and Amman 

March 21 and 29, 2006 

with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
JORDAN 

Defense: Acquisition and Cross-Servicing 

Agreement signed at Tampa and Amman 

 March 21 and 29, 2006; 

 Entered into force March 29, 2006. 

 With annexes.
#### Lawrence H. Sanders v. William Archer, as Administrator, etc.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.
#### L & C Hair Designers, Inc., Respondent, v Gabrielle Balestrieri, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[716 NYS2d 602]

—In an action to recover damages for the violation of a restrictive covenant and to enforce the restrictive covenant, the defendant Gabrielle Balestrieri appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered September 9, 1999, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for a preliminary injunction enjoining her, *inter alia,*from engaging, in any capacity, in the business and trade being conducted at 520 Mamaroneck Avenue in White Plains.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*428Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction against her. The plaintiff established the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent the granting of the injunction, and that the balance of the equities was in the plaintiffs favor *(see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso,*75 NY2d 860; *Merrell Benco Agency v Safrin,*231 AD2d 614; *Conlon v Concord Pools,*170 AD2d 754). Friedmann, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Pt a -
z °
Pathfinder SF
>
Reservoir #*

3°
ol

Bow

A Wedeing
on

4 Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks oO. 10 20 40 60 80 100
Kilometers
e Greater Sage-Grouse Leks
0 5 10 20 30 40 50
a
Miles

Map 3-13
Greater Sage-Grouse and
Columbian Sharp-tailed

NO WARRANTY iS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM Grouse Leks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,208
<SECURITIES>                                   501,047
<RECEIVABLES>                                  239,586
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,469
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               789,355
<PP&E>                                       1,288,459
<DEPRECIATION>                                 699,377
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,415,915
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          281,675
<BONDS>                                        317,873
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,308
<OTHER-SE>                                     694,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,415,915
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               887,008
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  610,499
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                75,621
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,040
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                205,281
<INCOME-TAX>                                    80,060
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            125,221
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   125,221
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .96
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith PARKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-31081

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 18, 2007.

Michael J. Jefferson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard Mark Upton, Upton & Smith, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Counsel appointed to represent Keith Parker in this appeal from a pre-trial detention order has requested leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a brief as required by Anders *v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Parker has filed a response. Our independent review of counsel’s brief, the record, and Parker’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities in connection with this appeal, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### §2095. Reports

The Commission is authorized to issue such rules, regulations, or orders requiring reports of ownership, possession, extraction, refining, shipment, or other handling of source material as it may deem necessary, except that such reports shall not be required with respect to (a) any source material prior to removal from its place of deposit in nature, or (b) quantities of source material which in the opinion of the Commission are unimportant or the reporting of which will discourage independent prospecting for new deposits.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §65, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 933; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, §902(a)(8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to this section were contained in section 1805(b)(4) of this title, prior to the general amendment and renumbering of act Aug. 1, 1946, by act Aug. 30, 1954.
#### § 20.7 Waiver.

A former spouse entitled to an annuity under this part may decide to decline all or any part of the annuity for personal reasons. An annuity waiver shall be in writing and sent to the Retirement Division (PER/ER/RET), Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. A waiver may be revoked in writing at any time. Payment of the annuity waived prior to receipt by the Retirement Division of the renovation may not be made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          78,648
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,398,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    287,077
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,961,248
<PP&E>                                       2,348,970
<DEPRECIATION>                                 181,031
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,581,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,457,638
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,112
<OTHER-SE>                                     725,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,581,254
<SALES>                                      3,951,836
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,951,836
<CGS>                                        2,530,447
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,530,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,531,345
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             234,425
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (344,381)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (344,381)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (344,381)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 11

ALLIN COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

CALCULATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

          (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                                          Three Months         Three Months
                                                                              Ended               Ended
                                                                            March 31,           March 31,
                                                                              1997                1998
                                                                           -----------       --------------
<S>                                                                       <C>                   <C>
Net loss                                                                  $   (2,592)        $   (1,746)
                                                                                        
Accretion and dividends on preferred stock                                        64                 55
                                                                           -----------        ----------
                                                                                        
Net loss attributable to common shareholders                              $   (2,656)        $   (1,801)
                                                                           ===========        ==========
                                                                                        
Net loss per common share - basic and diluted                             $    (0.51)        $    (0.35)
                                                                           ===========        ==========
                                                                                        
Weighted average common shares outstanding                                              
     during the period                                                     5,184,067          5,182,267
                                                                                        
Effect of restricted common stock                                            (26,668)           (24,868)
                                                                           -----------        ----------
                                                                                        
Shares used in calculating net loss per common                                          
     share                                                                 5,157,399          5,157,399
                                                                           ===========        ==========

</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1421

_____________________________

LAWRENCE WILLIAM PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel—

Original Jurisdiction.

November 7, 2018

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate 

counsel is denied on the merits.

ROWE, BILBREY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Lawrence William Patterson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
§ 128.8 Hearings. ( a ) A respondent who had not filed a timely written answer is not entitled to a hearing, and the case may be considered by the Administrative Law Judge as provided in § 128.4(a). If any answer is filed, but no oral hearing demanded, the Administrative Law Judge may proceed to consider the case upon the written pleadings and evidence available. The Administrative Law Judge may provide for the making of the record in such manner as the Administrative Law Judge deems appropriate. If respondent answers and demands an oral hearing, the Administrative Law Judge, upon due notice, shall set the case for hearing, unless a respondent has raised in his answer no issues of material fact to be determined. If respondent fails to appear at a scheduled hearing, the hearing nevertheless may proceed in respondent's absence. The respondent's failure to appear will not affect the validity of the hearing or any proceedings or action thereafter.
( b ) The Administrative Law Judge may administer oaths and affirmations. Respondent may be represented by counsel. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties and the Administrative Law Judge the proceeding will be taken by a reporter or by magnetic recording, transcribed, and filed with the Administrative Law Judge. Respondent may examine the transcript and may obtain a copy upon payment of proper costs.
[61 FR 48833, Sept. 17, 1996]