alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register: February 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 25)]
[Notices]               
[Page 6192-6193]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08fe10-45]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Indian Education--
Professional Development Grants

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.299B.

ACTION: Correction; Notice inviting applications for new awards for 
fiscal year (FY) 2010.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On December 18, 2009, we published in the Federal Register (74 
FR 67182) a notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2010 for 
the Indian Education--Professional Development Grants. The 
Intergovernmental Review Deadline date as published on page 67184 is 
corrected to April 26, 2010. The specific change to be made is as 
follows:
    On page 67184, second column, the date listed for Deadline for 
Intergovernmental Review is changed to read ``April 26, 2010.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lana Shaughnessy, U.S. Department of 
Education, Office of Indian Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 
3E231, Washington, DC 20202-6135. Telephone: (202) 205-2528, or by e-
mail: Lana.Shaughnessy@ed.gov.

[[Page 6193]]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the 
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in this notice.
    Electronic Access to This Document: You can view this document, as 
well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the 
Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister. To 
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at 
this site.

    Note: The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.


    Dated: February 3, 2010.
Thelma Mel[eacute]ndez de Santa Ana,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2010-2701 Filed 2-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
```
### SUBCHAPTER I—ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
#### Kenneth S. Hyatt, Respondent, v. Carmine Peduto, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff when his ear, while stopped awaiting the change of a red light at a street intersection, was struck in the rear by defendant’s car, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 14, 1960, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and directing an assessment of damages. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, issues of fact are presented which should be resolved after a trial. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
Map 2-9: Alternative A

Right-of-Way Exclusion and Avoidance Areas

Related to Greater Sage Grouse Habitat

0 20 40 60 80

Kilometers

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

1

LUP Amendments Planning Area

Boundary

BLM Field Office Boundaries

Forest Service Planning Unit

Boundaries

Sage Grouse Priority Habitat

Management Area (Core)

Sage Grouse Priority Habitat

Management Area (Connectivity)

Right-of-Way Avoidance Areas

Right-of-Way Exclusion Areas

BLM and USFS Surface

Management

County Boundaries

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Final Environmental Impact Statement - May 2015

W Y O M I N G

M T

I D

M A P A R E A

Crook

Weston

Sundance

Rock Springs

Field Office

§ ̈¦80

U T

C O

N E

S D

Newcastle

Lusk

Douglas

Casper

Cheyenne

Wheatland Torrington

Laramie

Rawlins

Rock Springs

Green River

Evanston

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Rawlins Field Offi ce

Casper Field Offi ce

Newcastle

Field Office

Pinedale

Field Office

Kemmerer

Field Office

Bridger -

Teton

N.F.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine Bow

N.F.

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

Platte

G

o

s

h

e

n

Alb

a

n

y

L

a

r

a

mie

C

o

n

v

e

r

s

e

Nio

b

r

a

r

a

Nat rona

Carbon

S

w

e

etw

ate

r

C

a

r

b

o

n

Sublette

Lincoln

T

eto

n

Fr

e

m

o

nt

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Note: Identified restrictions displayed on this map

represent the existing management actions

across Greater Sage Grouse Habitat only.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**EDWARD YOHN,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**MICHAEL D. OVERMYER, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCI FOREST,**  **KATHLEEN KANE, ATTORNEY**
**GENERAL,**

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 72 WM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 13th day of November, 2015, the Application f or Leave to File** 

**Original Process is** GRANTED **, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is** DENIED

**.**
Exhibit 99.1
  
 Re:
    
    Green Bankshares, Inc.
UST: 180
RSSD: 1133277
        (A)
    
    SEO compensation plans that could lead SEOs to take
unnecessary and excessive risks that could threaten the value of the Company;(B)
    
    Employee compensation plans that unnecessarily expose the
Company to risks; and(C)
    
    Employee compensation plans that could encourage the
manipulation of reported earnings of the Company to enhance the compensation of
an employee;




---



##### 



/s/ R. Stan Puckett

R. Stan PuckettChairman and Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 8, 2010
  2
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 6 , 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00432

- CV

LAWRENCE THOMPSON , Appellant

V.
KERRY ALLEN , Appellee

On Appeal from the 61st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 10948

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed December 18 , 201 3

. Appellant ’ s notice of appeal was filed May 1, 2014

. On September 4, 2014, we directed the Harris County District Clerk to file a partial clerk’s record containing (1) the court’s judgment; (2) any request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, any post

- judgment motion, and the court’s2 order on the mot ion; and (3) the notice of appeal, in order that we might determine our jurisdiction.

The record was filed and does not contain any post

- judgment motion that would operate to extend the appellate timetable. Accordingly, appellant’s notice of appeal was du e thirty days after the judgment was signed, on January 17, 2014. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. The notice of appeal, filed May 1, 2014, is therefore untimely.

On September 25, 2014, the parties were notified of the court ’ s intention to dismiss the appeal f or want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant ’ s response fails to demonstrate that this Court has jurisd iction to entertain the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamiso n and Donovan

.
#### A. J. Brunswig *et al.,*Respondents, *v.*Philip C. Taylor *et al.,*Appellants.

June 6, 1876.

A commission merchant occupies a fiduciary relation to his principal, so that a discharge in bankruptcy "will not, under section 33 of the United States bankruptcy act of 1867, release him from liability upon a debt so incurred,

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

*Affirmed.*

*Farish & Griffin,*for appellants,

cited: Cronan *v.*Cot-ting, 104 Mass. 245 ; Lemcke *v.*Booth, 47 Mo. 385; Chapman *v.*Forsyth, 2 How. 202.

*8laybaclc & Haeussler,*for respondents,

cited : Stokes *v.*Mason, 10 R. I. 261; Bump. (7th ed.) 638; *In re*Patterson, 1 Bank Reg. 58; 2 Ben. 155; *In re*J. R. Pettes, *2*Bank Reg. 155 ; *In re*Seymour, 1 Bank Reg. 7 ; *In re*Kimbal, 6 Blatchf. 292; *In re*Robinson, 6 Blatchf. 253; Whittaker *v.*Chapman, 4 Am. Law Times, 92 ; Warner *v.*Crankhite, 2 C. L. J. 773; Lemcke *v.*Booth, 47 Mo. 385.

Lewis, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendants were commission merchants in the city of St. Louis. Plaintiffs, residing in Kansas, shipped to them, for sale on commission, in the ordinary course of trade, a lot of produce, which was received by defendants, and sold, early in June, 1873. Afterwards, on June 14th, defendants .suspended payment, and, on the same day, transmitted their account of sales to plaintiffs. In July, 1873, defendants were adjudicated bankrupts, and, in December, 1874, obtained their discharge. Against this suit for the proceeds of-sales defendants pleaded, in vain, their discharge in bankruptcy.

The question presented by the record is whether a commission merchant stands in a fiduciary relation to his principal, within the meaning of section 33 of the United States bankruptcy act of 1867, so that a discharge will not release *352Rim from liability upon a debt incurred in that capacity. The weight of reasoning upon decisions rendered elsewhere,, under the bankrupt acts of 1841 and 1867, may be conceded to the defendants. But, in Missouri, the question is no-longer ojien. In *Lemcke*v. *Booth,*47 Mo. 385, our Supreme Court, after reviewing and comparing some of the decisions referred to, concludes that “ an indebted factor or commission merchant stands in a fiduciary relation to his principals, with respect to the proceeds of sales of commission goods in his charge, and debts incurred in that capacity are not discharged ” under the act of 1867.

Defendants undertake to break the force of this decision, with the fact that defendants, in the present case, guaranteed the proceeds of their sales, and were bound to pay them over, whether collected or not. But we cannot see how that enables us to evade the ruling of the Supreme Court. The trust was the same, with or without the guaranty. Moreover, the principle involved in that argument was, in another form, pressed upon the attention of the court in the case referred to.

Upon the authority quoted we are constrained to affirm the judgment.

Judge Gantt concurs ; Judge Bake well,. of counsel in the court below, not sitting.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23(d)



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
Registration Statements of National City Bancshares, Inc. (File No. 333-75093
and 333-79163) of our report dated October 24, 1997, on our audit of the
statements of financial condition of Princeton Federal Bank, fsb, as of
September 30, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of income,
changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years ended September
30, 1997, 1996 and 1995, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.




/s/ THURMAN CAMPBELL & CO.
--------------------------
Princeton, Kentucky
March 29, 2000
#### § 57.19103 Dumping facilities and loading pockets.

Dumping facilities and loading pockets shall be constructed so as to minimize spillage into the shaft.
§ 764.17 Hearing requirements. ( a ) Within 10 months after receipt of a complete petition, the regulatory authority shall hold a public hearing in the locality of the area covered by the petition. If all petitioners and intervenors agree, the hearing need not be held. The regulatory authority may subpoena witnesses as necessary. The hearing may be conducted with cross-examination of expert witnesses only. A record of the hearing shall be made and preserved according to State law. No person shall bear the burden of proof or persuasion. All relevant parts of the data base and inventory system and all public comments received during the public comment period shall be included in the record and considered by the regulatory authority in its decision on the petition.
( b ) ( 1 ) The regulatory authority shall give notice of the date, time, and location of the hearing to: ( i ) Local, State, and Federal agencies which may have an interest in the decision on the petition;
( ii ) The petitioner and the intervenors; and
( iii ) Any person known by the regulatory authority to have a property interest in the petitioned area. Proper notice to persons with an ownership interest of record shall comply with the requirements of applicable State law.
( 2 ) Notice of the hearing shall be sent by certified mail to petitioners and intervenors, and by regular mail to government agencies and property owners involved in the proceeding, and postmarked not less than 30 days before the scheduled date of the hearing.
( c ) The regulatory authority shall notify the general public of the date, time, and location of the hearing by placing a newspaper advertisement once a week for 2 consecutive weeks in the locale of the area covered by the petition and once during the week prior to the public hearing. The consecutive weekly advertisement must begin between 4 and 5 weeks before the scheduled date of the public hearing.
( d ) The regulatory authority may consolidate in a single hearing the hearings required for each of several petitions which relate to areas in the same locale.
( e ) Prior to designating any land areas as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations, the regulatory authority shall prepare a detailed statement, using existing and available information on the potential coal resources of the area, the demand for coal resources, and the impact of such designation on the environment, the economy, and the supply of coal.
( f ) In the event that all petitioners and intervenors stipulate agreement prior to the hearing, the petition may be withdrawn from consideration.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Terry R. Lazar, Chief Financial Officer of Water Chef, Inc., hereby certify
that the Form 10-KSB of Water Chef, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2007
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Water Chef, Inc.

                                            /s/  Terry R. Lazar
                                            --------------------------------
                                                 Terry R. Lazar, Director and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

Date: April 14, 2007


These certifications are being furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, shall not be deemed to be filed as part of the periodic
report described herein nor shall they be deemed filed by Water Chef, Inc. for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of the written statements required by Section 906 has been
provided to Water Chef, Inc. and will be retained by Water Chef, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §40131. Aeronautics scholarships

(a) Establishment.—The Administrator shall establish a program of scholarships for full-time graduate students who are United States citizens and are enrolled in, or have been accepted by and have indicated their intention to enroll in, accredited Masters degree programs in aeronautical engineering or equivalent programs at institutions of higher education. Each such scholarship shall cover the costs of room, board, tuition, and fees, and may be provided for a maximum of 2 years.

(b) Implementation.—Not later than 180 days after December 30, 2005, the Administrator shall publish regulations governing the scholarship program under this section.

(c) Cooperative Training Opportunities.—Students who have been awarded a scholarship under this section shall have the opportunity for paid employment at one of the Administration Centers engaged in aeronautics research and development during the summer prior to the first year of the student's Masters program, and between the first and second year, if applicable.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3381.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 40131 | 42 U.S.C. 16741. | Pub. L. 109–155, title IV, §431, Dec. 30, 2005, 119 Stat. 2927. |

Section

In subsection (b), the date "December 30, 2005" is substituted for "the date of enactment of this Act" to reflect the date of enactment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–155, 119 Stat. 2895).
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 18 - 00224 - CV

________________________ LANDRY ROBERT LLOYD , APPELLANT

V. KACY JEANNE HENSLEY , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 237th District Court Lubbock C ounty, Texas Trial Court No. 2016 - 519,987 ; Honorable Les Hatch , Presiding July 3 , 201 8 

### ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. This appeal relates to an Order of Enforcement following entry of a Final Decree of Divorce between Appellant, Landry Robert Lloyd , and Appellee, Kacy Jeanne Hensley , that was previously appealed to this court . The issues from the previous appeal related2

to the trial court’s award of certain pe rsonal property to Kacy as her separate prop erty . In that prior appeal, t h is court affirmed the decree of divorce on September 26, 2017. 1 Subsequent to this court’s decision, Kacy filed , in the trial court , a Motion for Enforcement of Property Division . When Landry failed to appear at the hearing on Kacy’s motion, the trial court found that good cause existed for granting the motion and , on May 3, 2018, signed an Enforcement Order directing Landry to deliver specific property to Kacy. Landry has now appealed th at order to this court. Seve ral weeks after filing his appeal, Landry filed , in this court , a Motion to Suspend Enforc e ment Pending Appeal seeking to suspend enforcement of the Enforcement Order and stay further proceedings, pending disposition of this appeal . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 24 .1(a). Landry offered to post a bond pursuant to Rule 24.1(a) should “this court set one.” Rule 24.1(a)(2), however, provides for suspension of enforcement of a judgment by “filing with the trial court clerk a good and sufficient bond.” Under Rule 24.2( a)(2), when the judgment is for recovery of an interest in personal property, the amount of the bond is determined by the trial court, not this court. By her response to Landry’s motion, Kacy agrees that Landry should post bond pursuant to an order from t he trial court. Consequently, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings to determine the amount of the bond necessary for suspension of enforcement pending the outcome of this appeal.

1 See Lloyd v. Hensley , No. 07 - 16 - 00417 - CV, 2017 Tex. App
. LEXIS 8479, at *8 (Tex. App.
— Amarillo Sept. 6, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.).3

Upon remand, the trial cour t shall, by whatever means necessary, enter an order setting the type and amount of security th at Landry must post to suspend the E nforcement Order of May 3, 2018, while the appeal from that order remains pending in this court. The trial court shall cause a supplemental clerk’s record containing its order setting bon d and any other necessary orders related to this matter to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before July 30 , 2018. All a ppellate deadlines are suspended pending the trial court’s determination of the amount of bond to be posted by Landry and reinstatement of this appeal. It is so ordered. Per Curiam
#### In the Matter of Vincent J. Mansfield, Petitioner, v. Michael J. Murphy, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York and as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the City of New York, Police Pension Fund, et al., Respondents.

Determination confirmed and the petition dismissed, without costs. We are all in accord that the evidence was sufficient to establish petitioner’s guilt. In view of what petitioner did, we cannot say that the sanction meted out was excessive. All but one of the cases cited in the dissent involved minor employees, and of those only one was a policeman. A superior officer is expected to have a greater appreciation of the responsibilities of his office, and his infractions are therefore less excusable and subject to more rigorous discipline. The remaining petitioner in the cited eases, a physician in the Department of Correction of 20 years’ service, was charged with the infraction of a minor rule, and the dismissal was stated to be shocking to the conscience of the court. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.; McNally, J., dissents in a memorandum: The dismissal of petitioner and the forfeiture of his accrued pension rights in my opinion constitute unreasonably harsh and excessive sanctions. I do not condone the acceptance of gratuities by police officers or for that matter any public official. This police captain’s record of 20 years serves to establish that the permissible aims of discipline, the protection of the public, deterrence and rehabilitation can be achieved effectively by punishing the infractions less severely. The forfeiture of pension rights based on prior satisfactory service *660smacks of attainder. A period of suspension followed by retirement would in my opinion satisfy the ends of justice. Our courts have heretofore revoked sentences of dismissal of employees with records of prior good service and substituted suspension. *(Matter of Mitthauer*v. *Patterson,*8 N Y 2d 37; *Matter of Nagin*v. *Zurmuhlen,*6 A D 2d 677; *Matter of Nimelman*v. *Kross,*5 A D 2d 984; *Matter of McDonnell*v. *Kennedy,*5 A D 2d 971.) Such a result in my opinion would “ make the punishment fit the crime.” (Gilbert & Sullivan, The Mikado, Act II.)
#### § 778.1 Scope and purpose.

This part establishes the minimum requirements for the permit applications for surface coal mining and reclamation operations under a State or Federal program. This part covers minimum legal, financial, and compliance requirements and general information that must be contained in permit applications. This part applies to any person who submits an application to a regulatory authority for a permit to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations.