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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [CC Docket No. 92-237; DA 04-3830] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        On December 7, 2004, the Commission released a public notice announcing the cancellation of the December 10, 2004, conference call meeting of the North American Numbering Council (NANC). The intended effect of this action is to make the public aware of the cancellation of the NANC's conference call meeting. This notice of the cancellation of the December 10, 2004, NANC conference call meeting is being published in the                         **Federal Register**                         less than 15 calendar days prior to the previously scheduled conference call meeting to ensure that the public is made aware of the cancellation of the federal advisory committee's December 10, 2004, conference call meeting as soon as possible.                     

                        This statement complies with the General Services Administration Management regulations implementing the Federal Advisory Committee Act.                         *See*41 CFR 101-6.1015(b)(2).                     

# ADDRESSES:

Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, The Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Suite 5-A420, Washington, DC 20554. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Deborah Blue, Special Assistant to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at (202) 418-1466 or                         *Deborah.Blue@fcc.gov.*                         The fax number is: (202) 418-2345. The TTY number is: (202) 418-0484.                     

Federal Communications Commission.

Sanford S. Williams,

Attorney, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 04-27280 Filed 12-8-04; 1:18 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Gibbons 

Saitta 

J. 

J. 

Petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that our extraordinary 

intervention is warranted, and an appeal is typically considered an 

adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief. NRS 34.170; NRS 

34.330; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 

844 (2004). 

Having considered the petition, we conclude that our 

intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. See NRAP 

21(b); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 

P.2d at 851 (stating that the issuance of an extraordinary writ is purely 

discretionary with this court). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

cc: Hon. Jennifer Elliott, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Anthony Haugabook 

Lisa Anne Haugabook 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 74493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27378]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 34-2004]


Proposed Foreign-Trade Zone--Conroe (Montgomery County), TX 
Extension of Rebuttal Comment Period

    The rebuttal comment period for the application to establish a 
general-purpose foreign-trade zone in Conroe (Montgomery County), 
Texas, submitted by the City of Conroe, Texas (69 FR 51060, 8/17/04), 
is being extended to December 20, 2004, at the request of the 
applicant.

    Dated: December 6, 2004.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-27378 Filed 12-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Paula R. Smith et al., Appellants, v Steven Manning et al., Defendants, and Boulevard Produce, Inc., Respondent.

[716 NYS2d 844]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted that part of the motion of defendant Boulevard Produce, Inc. seeking to compel Paula R. Smith (plaintiff) to submit to an examination by a nonphysician vocational rehabilitation specialist. Although CPLR 3121 (a) authorizes physical or mental examinations by a designated physician, that statute “does not limit the scope of general discovery available, subject to the discretion of the trial court, under CPLR 3101,” and the directives in CPLR 3121 (a) concerning the procedures for obtaining such examinations “do not detract from a Trial Judge’s authority to act pur*1005suant to the more general provisions which may render information discoverable” *(Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp.,*92 NY2d 952, 953-954; *see, Hoenig v Westphal,*52 NY2d 605, 609-610). Here the court properly balanced the need for the examination against the burden to plaintiff *(see, Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., supra,*at 954). Because plaintiff intends to establish her present lack of capacity to perform in the work force, “[p]laintiffs thereby overtly made vocational rehabilitation assessment procedures ‘material and necessary in the * * * defense’ for the purposes of rebuttal” *(Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., supra,*at 955; *see,*CPLR 3101 [a]; *see also, Hoenig v Westphal, supra,*at 610). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, *Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp. (supra)*is not limited to cases in which the plaintiff has retained a vocational rehabilitation specialist. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Discovery.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.
Order entered February 25, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00209
- CV
IN RE KENNETH HALL, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F09
- 52103
- SPM 

### O RDER Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding

.
/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE
#### § 1508.980 Participant.

*Participant* means any person who submits a proposal for or who enters into a covered transaction, including an agent or representative of a participant.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MIGUEL VALADEZ,

Defendant. /

No. CR 08-00919 WHA

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR REDUCTION 

OF SENTENCE UNDER

AMENDMENT 782

Defendant Miguel Valadez moves, pro se, for a reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C.

3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The United States Probation

Office has submitted a report in opposition, stating that defendant is not eligible for a lower

sentence.

Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, effective November 1,

2014, reduces the penalties for most drug offenses by reducing most offense levels. This

amendment may be applied retroactively to reduce the sentences of previously sentenced inmates

under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Amendment 782 does not authorize, however, reductions in

sentences when an offender’s total offense level remains unchanged based on the revised

guidelines.

In 2010, defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute

methamphetamine and was sentenced to 126 months. Because the revisions to the drug quantity

table under Amendment 782 do not lower his base offense level, he is not eligible for a sentence

reduction under Amendment 782. Defendant’s motion is thus DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cr-00919-WHA Document 141 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 1
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Water levels and artesianpressure in observation wells in the United States. Part 1, Northeasternstates.**
 
1940 | 1941 | 1942 | 1943 | 1944 | 1945 | 1946 | 1947 | 1948 | 1949
1950 | 1951 | 1952 | 1953 | 1954 | 1955
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.13:
Item Number:0625 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001104677
 
August 22, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from American
International Consolidated Inc., and Subsidiaries - Condensed Consolidated
Financial Statements at January 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                             169
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,088
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (82)
<INVENTORY>                                        129
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,579
<PP&E>                                           2,223
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,033
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,428
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,626)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,200
<SALES>                                         25,596
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,596
<CGS>                                           23,658
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,205
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   272
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,653)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,653)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,653)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.91)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         212,918
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               212,918
<PP&E>                                         162,019
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,122
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 440,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          461,843
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       111,211
<OTHER-SE>                                    (132,251)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   440,803
<SALES>                                            (44)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   (44)
<CGS>                                            3,535
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,192
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               230,649
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (11,220)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (253,296)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (253,296)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 62,024
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (191,272)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)



</TABLE>
#### In re BARBER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 21, 1905.)

In the matter of the petition of William S. Barber for an injunction against Fred Norton. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Law Offices of GEORGE C. BOISSEAU 

State Bar Number 75872

740 4 Street, Second Floor th

Santa Rosa, California 95404

Phone: (707) 578-5636

Fax: (707) 578-1141

E-Mail: boisseaugc@msn.com

Law Offices of DENA MARIE YOUNG 

State Bar Number 215344

2360 Mendocino Ave., Suite A2, PMB #206 

Santa Rosa, California 95403

Phone: (707) 528-9479

Fax: (707) 692-5314

E-Mail: dmyounglaw@gmail.com

Attorneys for Defendant

LUKE D. BRUGNARA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CR-14-0306-WHA

) CR-08-0222-WHA

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) (PROPOSED) ORDER EXTENDING

) THE DEADLINE FOR APPRAISAL

LUKE D. BRUGNARA, ) OF THE ART WORKS AND

) CONTINUING THE HEARING ON 

Defendant. ) THE THIRD PARTY MOTION FOR

 ) RETURN OF PROPERTY 

GOOD CAUSE appearing, the deadline for defense counsel to have an expert

appraise the art works is extended by one week, and the hearing on the third-party motion for

return of property, which is currently set for June 21, 2015, will be continued by one week to

July 28, 2015, at 2:00 pm. 

Dated: 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

EX(PROPOSED) ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE / CONTINUE HEARING

July 13, 2015. July

Case 3:08-cr-00222-WHA Document 537 Filed 07/13/15 Page 1 of 1
§ 146.545 Pre-employment inquiries. ( a ) *Marital status.* A recipient shall not make pre-employment inquiry as to the marital status of an applicant for employment, including whether such applicant is “Miss” or “Mrs.”
( b ) *Sex.* A recipient may make pre-employment inquiry as to the sex of an applicant for employment, but only if such inquiry is made equally of such applicants of both sexes and if the results of such inquiry are not used in connection with discrimination prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,526
<SECURITIES>                                   538,879
<RECEIVABLES>                                  248,440
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,261
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               859,011
<PP&E>                                       1,311,188
<DEPRECIATION>                                 718,038
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,514,582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          311,852
<BONDS>                                        317,873
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,308
<OTHER-SE>                                     751,710
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,514,582
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,346,652
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  936,750
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                297,144
<INCOME-TAX>                                   115,724
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            181,420
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   181,420
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.39
        

</TABLE>
#### §§ 1701.141-1701.148 [Reserved]
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.C.R., a child, * From the 220th District Court

 of Comanche County,

 Trial Court No. DV17119.

No. 11-22-00070-CV * July 28, 2022

* Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error 

in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the order of 

the trial court is reversed, and we remand the cause for further proceedings. Any 

proceeding on remand must be commenced within 180 days of this court’s mandate. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT TIFFINY ROUSEY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4094 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed March 21, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; James A. Yancey, Judge. Tiffiny Rousey, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Stovall v. Cooper, 860 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (en banc); Stokes v. State, 851 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Brown v. State, 793 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Toomer v. State, 895 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Teart v. State, 866 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Sherwood v. State, 745 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

LaROSE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
#### Donald D’Avolio, as Administrator C. T. A. of the Estate of Agatha D’Avolio, Deceased, Appellant, v Huberto W. Prado et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[715 NYS2d 681]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Same Memorandum as in *D’Avolio v Prado*([appeal No. 2] 277 AD2d 877 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, 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 fo r leave to appeal th e October 12, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Z AHRA



### , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
#### Anthony T. Feyh, Individually and Doing Business as Wyckoff Press, Respondent, v. Brandtjen *&*Kluge, Inc., Appellant.

No opinion. Carswell, Acting P. J., Adel, Johnston, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.
#### § 228.18 Long-term leases.

Any commodity obtained under a long-term lease agreement as defined in § 228.01, including motor vehicles, is subject to the source and nationality requirements of this subpart B of this part, including the special procurement rules as set forth in § 228.19.