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 Agriculture

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting date change.

# SUMMARY:

The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) has changed its January meeting date to Monday, January 10, 2005 to ensure a quorum is present. The agenda includes member consideration of the Black Hills National Forest 1997 Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Phase II Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement so as to make recommendations to the forest supervisor. The meeting is open, and the public may attend any part of the meeting.

# ADDRESSES:

SDSU West River Ag Center, 1905 Plaza Boulevard, Rapid City, SD.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frank Carroll, Black Hills National Forest, 25041 North Highway 16, Custer, SD 57730, (605) 673-9200.

      ( print page 76688)    
Dated: December 13, 2004.

Brad Exton, 

Acting Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 04-27925  Filed 12-21-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee meeting date change. 

      ( print page 77740)    

# SUMMARY:

On Monday, October 4, 2004 (69 FR 59214) the Department of Defense announced closed meetings of the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on December 9-10, 2004, at the Institute for Defense Analyses, 4850 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA. These meetings will now be held at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA.

Dated: November 29, 2004.

Jeannette Owings-Ballard,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 04-28260  Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
#### Milledgeville Cotton Company *v.*Bacon.

August 14, 1912.

'Action for breach of contract. Before Judge J. B. Park. Baldwin superior court. May 1, 1911.

*Hines & Vinson,*for plaintiffs in error.

*M. E. Evans*and *Allen & Pottle,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

The action was for breach of contract, it being alleged that the plaintiff was employed by the defendants to represent them as a cotton buyer in a named town for a stated period at a given salary, and his expenses when out of town on defendants’ business. Defendants’ answer admitted the contract of employment and the amount of salary alleged by plaintiff, but denied any agreement to pay expenses as claimed. The answer further admitted that defendants discharged plaintiff from their service about the time alleged by plaintiff, but pleaded justification in so doing, because plaintiff had been derelict in the discharge of his duties, was incompetent, and had violated the trust reposed in- him, the particulars being set forth. There was a further plea to the effect that plaintiff was short in his accounts with defendants in a stated sum, for which judgment was prayed against him. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants excepted to the refusal of a new trial. *Held:*

1. The verdict was supported by evidence.

2. There was evidence to authorize the instruction excepted to, in reference to ratification by defendants as to the expenses claimed by plaintiff.

3. The court did not err in instructing the jury to the effect that the burden of proof was on the defendants to establish, to the satisfaction of the jury, by a preponderance of evidence, their plea of justification in the discharge of plaintiff. “The burden of proof generally lies upon the party asserting or affirming a fact, and to the existence of whose case or defense the proof of such fact is essential.” Civil Code, § 5746. The defense referred to was certainly, affirmative, and was, moreover, somewhat in the nature of confession and avoidance; and it is well settled that the burden in such cases, is upon the defendant to sustain his plea. See *Stewart*v. *Mynatt,*135 *Ga.*637 (70 S. E. 325); *Widincamp*v. *Widincamp,*135 *Ga.*644 (70 S. E. 566). This ruling is not in conflict with what was held in *Mobley*v. *Lyon,*134 *Ga.*125 (67 S. E. 668, 137 Am. St. R. 213, 19 Ann. Cas. 1004), relied on by plaintiffs in error. There the issue. was whether the alleged testatrix signed the instrument purporting to be her will; the propounders contending that she did, and the caveator contending that she did not. As the propounders held the affirmative of the issue, the burden was on them to sustain it.

4. The fact that the court, subsequently in his charge, repeated in substance the instruction referred to in the next preceding headnote, was not cause for a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices eoneur.*
# Unite d S tates C our t of A ppea ls

F O R T H E D I S T R

I C T O F C O L U M B I A

C I R C U I T

F I L E D : O C TO B E R 16 , 2018

No. 17-1040

O L D D O M I

N I O N E L E C TR

I C C O O P E R

A TI V E , P E TI TI O N E R

v.

F E D E R A L E N E R

G Y R E G U L A TO R Y C O M M I S S I O N , R E S P O N D E

N T

L SP T R A N S M I S S I O N H O L D I

N G S , L L C, E T A L ., I N TE R V E N O R S

Consolidated with 17-1041

On Petition for Rehea

ring and/or Clarific ation and Motion for Clarific ation

Be fore : H E

N D E R S O N **, K

A V A N A U G H *, and K

A TS A S **, C I R

C U I T J U D G E S

ORDER

Upon consideration of the p et i tion for panel rehe aring and/or clar ification filed by I nterve nor-r espondents Ex elon C orpora tion, et al., and the motion for clar ification filed by I nterve nor-r espondents L inden VFT , L L C and Consol i d ated Edison Co. of New York, the opposition there to, and the re ply , it is2

ORDERED that the petition for re hear ing a nd/or clar ification be denie d. I t is

F URTHER ORDERED that the motion for clar ification be denied.

P er C uriam

F OR THE COURT: Mark J. L ang er, Cler

k

BY : /s/ Ken Me adows Deputy

Clerk

* Circuit J udge, n o w J ustice, Kava naug h was a member of the panel when the c ase w as submitted but did not participate in this matter.

** A statement by

Circuit J udg e Katsas, joined by Circuit J udg e Hende rson, is attache d.3

K A TS A S , Circuit Judge : The petitio n for panel rehe aring or clar ification filed by intervenor Ex elon Corporation and others is denied. The panel opinion “hold[s] only that FERC did not adequa tely justify its
approva l of the [t ariff

] amendment at issue.” Old Dominion Elec. Coop.

v. FERC , 898 F.3d 1254, 1263 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Nothing in the opinion
preve nts FERC on rema nd from attempting to “p rovi de a better justification for its approva l of t he tar iff ame ndment,” as Exelon would like. Pet. at 2. Acc ording ly , there is no need for clar ification.

The motion for clarification filed by intervenor s Consolidated Edison and L inden VFT is denied. Be cause the panel opinion set aside FERC’s approva l of the proposed tariff amendment, the unamende d tariff

rema ins in eff

ect. On rema

nd, the parties rema in fr ee t o addre ss the
appropr iate tre atment of low-voltage or other f acilities, either unde r the unamende d tariff or under an y p r o p o s e d tariff amendment that FERC may

now wish to consider. We express no opinion reg arding the appropr iate
trea tment of the contested Sewar en projec t—an issue not addre ssed in the order s under r eview.
Exhibit 23







Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-137816) of our report dated September 20, 2011 related to the consolidated balance sheet of PSB Holdings, Inc. as of June 30, 2011 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the June 30, 2012 annual report on Form 10-K of the PSB Holdings, Inc.




SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.


West Peabody, Massachusetts


September 26, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 229 (Friday, November 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76086-76087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26167]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of the Director; Notice of Charter Renewal

    In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal 
Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the 
Charter for the National Toxicology Program Board of Scientific 
Counselors was renewed for an additional two-year period on November 
14, 2020.
    It is determined that the National Toxicology Program Board of 
Scientific Counselors is in the public interest in connection with the 
performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of Health by 
law, and that these duties can best be performed

[[Page 76087]]

through the advice and counsel of this group.
    Inquiries may be directed to Claire Harris, Director, Office of 
Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National 
Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892 (Mail Stop Code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e48c8596968d978788a489858d88ca8a8d8cca838b92"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe969f8c8c978d9d92be939f9792d0909796d0999188">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: November 20, 2020.
Tyeshia M. Roberson,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-26167 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York v. John Chapman.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person denied in all respects inasmuch as no appeal lies from an order denying a free transcript of trial minutes *(People*v. *Ellerbe,*12 A D 2d 795). Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frederick Thomas, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 339]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), rendered January 22, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreement *(see, People v Scialdone,*228 AD2d 807). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, Friedmann and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
§ 519.200 Agency and legislative liaison. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 519.100 (a), does not apply in the case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement if the payment is for agency and legislative liaison activities not directly related to a covered Federal action.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, providing any information specifically requested by an agency or Congress is allowable at any time.
( c ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the following agency and legislative liaison activities are allowable at any time only where they are not related to a specific solicitation for any covered Federal action: ( 1 ) Discussing with an agency (including individual demonstrations) the qualities and characteristics of the person's products or services, conditions or terms of sale, and service capabilities; and,
( 2 ) Technical discussions and other activities regarding the application or adaptation of the person's products or services for an agency's use.
( d ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the following agencies and legislative liaison activities are allowable only where they are prior to formal solicitation of any covered Federal action: ( 1 ) Providing any information not specifically requested but necessary for an agency to make an informed decision about initiation of a covered Federal action;
( 2 ) Technical discussions regarding the preparation of an unsolicited proposal prior to its official submission; and,
( 3 ) Capability presentations by persons seeking awards from an agency pursuant to the provisions of the Small Business Act, as amended by Public Law 95-507 and other subsequent amendments.
( e ) Only those activities expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-08-05005 MMC (EDL)

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S AND

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO

SHORTEN TIME

On August 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Quash the Subpoena for Deposition of Joshua

Bloom and a Motion to Compel or Alternatively for In Camera Review. Also on that day,

Defendants filed a Motion to Compel the Deposition of Joshua Bloom. Both sides have filed

motions to shorten time to hear these motions. Plaintiff informed the Court that it did not oppose

Defendants’ Motion to Shorten Time. Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to

Shorten Time, stating that they opposed only shortening time for Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. 

Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Shorten Time to hear the Motion to Quash

Subpoena and Defendants’ Motion to Shorten Time to hear the Motion to Compel Deposition are

granted in part. Pursuant to the parties’ proposed briefing schedule, oppositions to the Motion to

Quash and Motion to Compel shall be filed no later than August 17, 2010, and replies, if any, shall

be filed no later than August 20, 2010. The hearing for these motions is scheduled for August 31,

2010 at 2:00 p.m. 

There is no good cause to grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Shorten Time to hear Plaintiff’s Motion

to Compel. Thus, the Motion to Compel shall be heard on a regularly noticed schedule. The Court,

however, is unavailable on September 7 and 14, 2010. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel shall

be heard on September 16, 2010. The Court is mindful of the September 10, 2010 discovery cutoff

Case 3:08-cv-05005-MMC Document 63 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

date. However, if as a result of the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Compel, key documents are

produced, the Court would consider extending the deadline for related depositions after the

discovery cutoff date upon a showing of good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05005-MMC Document 63 Filed 08/10/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Kenny Franklin EDMONSON, Appellant, v. Paul Orin JOHNSON; Gary Fuller; William H. Barbour, Jr; Sarrett Investments; Matt Ishee; Jerry Sarrett; Giles Wood Bond, Jr.; Alford G. Nichols, Jr.; Don Grant; Bruce Johnson; Rogers Dabbs Chevrolet, also known as Hummer, Inc.; Robert A. Kay; Cingular Wireless; Robert Taylor; State Bank & Trust Company; City of Brandon; Edward Peters; State of Mississippi; Larry Dyke; Anthony J. Buckley; Ross Barnett, Jr,; Tommy Mayfield; David Ruth; Board of Supervisors, Jones County; Stuart Robinson; Michael Guess; Board of Supervisors, Rankin County; Michael Robinson; Board of Supervisors, Yazoo County; James Williams; Richard D. Nash; Board of Supervisors, Hinds County; Charlie Foreman; SRT Towing; Laurel Leader Call Newspaper; Brian Livingston; Edgar Lampley; James Finley; Laurelwood Apartments; Furr Smith & Associ*411ates; Charles M. McCollum; Ronnie Pennington; David B. Clark; The Mississippi Bar; Sarrett Realty; Malcolm McMillian; Beverly Sarrett; Geneva Johnson; David Lyons; Martin Beech; Bobby DeLaughter; Gary Johnston; Johnston Auto Sales; Ronald Broom; City of Laurel; Others Unknown to the Plaintiff, Appellees.

No. 06-1585.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2007.

Filed: May 29, 2007.

Kenny Franklin Edmonson, Laurel, MS, pro se.

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kenny Edmonson, currently serving supervised release on a federal conviction, appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal without prejudice of his action brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a). We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 51 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 2
March 11

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 51 Filed 03/11/10 Page 2 of 2
HTML


      
         
            
               


                  

                  Exhibit 10.1

                  AMENDMENT
 TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN OF TANGER FACTORY
 OUTLET CENTERS, INC. AND TANGER PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                  Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. (the "Company"), a corporation organized under the laws of the State of North
                     Carolina, has previously adopted the Amended and Restated Incentive
                     Award Plan of Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. and Tanger
                     Properties Limited Partnership, effective December 29, 2008, as
                     amended from time to time (the "Plan").
                  

                  In order to amend the Plan in certain respects, this Amendment to the
                     Plan (the "Amendment") has been adopted by a resolution of the Board of Directors of the
                     Company on February 23, 2010 and approved by the Company's
                     shareholders on May 14, 2010 effective as set forth below. This
                     Amendment, together with the Plan, constitutes the entire Plan as
                     amended to date.
                  

                  1.  Effective as of the date of the Company's shareholder approval of
                     this Amendment, Section 1.4 of the Plan is hereby replaced in its
                     entirety with the following:
                  

                  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 


                        	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	"Section 1.4  Award Limit
                           	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	'Award Limit' shall mean (a) with respect to Options, 360,000 Common
                              Shares; (b) with respect to Performance Awards paid in cash,
                              $2,000,000; and (c) with respect to all other Awards, 360,000 Common
                              Shares, in each case as adjusted pursuant to Section 10.3."
                           	 	 	 	 



                  2.  Effective as of the date of the Company's shareholder approval of
                     this Amendment, Section 2.1(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by
                     replacing the number "6,000,000" with the number "7,700,000".
                  

                  * * * * * * *

                  Executed this 14th day of May, 2010.

                  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 


                        	 	 	 	 	TANGER FACTORY OUTLET
 CENTERS, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	By: /s/ Frank C. Marchisello Jr.	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Officer
§ 513.100 Purpose. ( a ) Executive Order (E.O.) 12549 provides that, to the extent permitted by law, Executive departments and agencies shall participate in a governmentwide system for nonprocurement debarment and suspension. A person who is debarred or suspended shall be excluded from Federal financial and nonfinancial assistance and benefits under Federal programs and activities. Debarment or suspension of a participant in a program by one agency shall have governmentwide effect.
( b ) These regulations implement section 3 of E.O. 12549 and the guidelines promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget under section 6 of the E.O. by: ( 1 ) Prescribing the programs and activities that are covered by the governmentwide system;
( 2 ) Prescribing the governmentwide criteria and governmentwide minimum due process procedures that each agency shall use;
( 3 ) Providing for the listing of debarred and suspended participants, participants declared ineligible (see definition of “ineligible” in § 513.105), and participants who have voluntarily excluded themselves from participation in covered transactions;
( 4 ) Setting forth the consequences of a debarment, suspension, determination of ineligibility, or voluntary exclusion; and
( 5 ) Offering such other guidance as necessary for the effective implementation and administration of the governmentwide system.
( c ) These regulations also implement Executive Order 12689 (3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 235) and 31 U.S.C. 6101 note (Public Law 103-355, sec. 2455, 108 Stat. 3327) by— ( 1 ) Providing for the inclusion in the *List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs* all persons proposed for debarment, debarred or suspended under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4; persons against which governmentwide exclusions have been entered under this part; and persons determined to be ineligible; and
( 2 ) Setting forth the consequences of a debarment, suspension, determination of ineligibility, or voluntary exclusion.
( d ) Although these regulations cover the listing of ineligible participants and the effect of such listing, they do not prescribe policies and procedures governing declarations of ineligibility.
[60 FR 33040, 33045, June 26, 1995]