alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

 When we granted the application, we directed the parties to brief whether the decree

was final.

FINAL COPY

294 Ga. 435

S13F1749. SAPP v. SAPP.

BLACKWELL, Justice.

We granted the application of Mary Brown Sapp for a discretionary appeal

from a divorce decree that required Sapp and her former husband to sell their

marital home. But upon further review, it appears that the decree was not final.1

Although it directed the sale of the marital home, the decree also provided that,

if Sapp and her former husband did not agree on a listing price — and there is

no dispute that they never agreed — the court would set a price at a later date.

When a divorce is granted by a decree that reserves an issue to be determined

later, the decree is interlocutory, not final. See Miller v. Miller, 288 Ga. 274,

282 (4) (705 SE2d 839) (2010); see also Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164, 165 (646

SE2d 469) (2007). Because the decree was interlocutory, Sapp was required to

bring her appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), which requires, among other

things, a certificate of immediate review. Because Sapp failed to comply with

OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), we dismiss her appeal. See Stevens v. State, 292 Ga. 218
2

(734 SE2d 743) (2012); Gelfand v. Gelfand, 281 Ga. 40, 41 (635 SE2d 770)

(2006).

Appeal dismissed. All the Justices concur.

Decided January 21, 2014.

Domestic relations. Glynn Superior Court. Before Judge Kelley.

Holle Weiss-Friedman, for appellant.

Ferrier & Ferrier, Crystal R. Ferrier, for appellee.
### SUBCHAPTER II—FARM PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 115–141, div. A, title VII, §772(a)(1), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 397, substituted "FARM PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION" for "FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES" in subchapter heading.
Exhibit 10(M)


 


Amendment


of the


Target
Corporation SMG Executive Deferred Compensation Plan


 


Section
A-4 of Supplement A of the Target Corporation SMG Executive Deferred
Compensation Plan is amended by
adding new paragraphs (e) and (f) as provided below, effective as of January 11,
2006:


 


(e)           Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)-(d) above, with
respect to a Participant who has previously received a One-Time ESBP Benefit
Transfer Credit and who has not provided advance written notice of his or her
retirement/termination date, nor had a Termination of Employment prior to
January 11, 2006:


 


(i)            Such Participant will receive a final annual
adjustment as of January 28, 2006 in an amount equal to the actuarial lump sum
present value of the sum of future estimated annual adjustments related to
service after 2005 that would have been made until the Participant had attained
age 65. The present value is determined by the Company in its sole and absolute
discretion based on interest rate factors, mortality factors, and other assumptions
deemed appropriate by the Company.


 


(ii)           Such Participant will be fully vested in
their ESBP Transfer Credits as of January 11, 2006.


 


(iii)          Consistent with transition relief allowed
under the proposed regulations of Code section 409A, such Participant will
elect the form of distribution for the final annual adjustment credited as of
January 28, 2006 from the methods identified in Section 4.5(a); provided that:


 


(A) the distribution commences one year following
the Participant’s Termination of Employment,


 


(B) the election must be completed no later than February
24, 2006, and


 


(C) if no election is received by February 24, 2006,
or the election is not valid because the transition relief allowed under the
proposed regulations of Code section 409A regarding distribution elections in
2006 would not apply, the distribution will be made consistent with the ESBP
distribution election made in 2004 related to adjustments in 2006.


 


In
all cases, no ESBP Benefit Transfer Credits will be made after January 28, 2006.


 


(f)            With respect to a Participant who has
previously received a One-Time ESBP Benefit Transfer Credit and who has
provided advance written notice of his or her retirement/termination date, or
had a Termination of Employment prior to January 11, 2006, the provisions of
paragraphs (a) – (d) above remain in full force and effect.
THE STATE 

o~LASKA 

GOVERNOR SEAN PARNELL 

November 28,2014 

Donna Deneen 

U.S. EPA Region 10 

Office of Air, Waste and Taxies (A WT-150) 

Attention: Docket ID No. EPA- R10- 0AR- 2014-0753 

1200 Sixth A venue 

Scatde, WA 98101 

Dear Ms. Deneen: 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation 

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY 

Director's Office 

410 Willoughby Avenue. Suite 303 

PO Box 111800 

Juneau. AK 99811-1800 

Main: 907-465·5100 

Toll free: 866-241-2805 

lax: 907-465 5129 

http://dec.alaska.gov /air/index.htm 

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has reviewed the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 10's (EPA's) proposed approval of ADEC's major source Nonattainment New Source Review 

(major NNSR) program State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals, published in the l~deral Regisler(Vol. 79, No. 

213, 65366) on November 4, 2014. ADEC appreciates EPA's work on approving Alaska's SIP submissions on 

major NNSR provisions from 2009 - 2014 in this action. 

ADEC supports EPA's proposed approval of the major NNSR revisions to Alaska's SIP. Thank you for your 

expedited efforts to propose and finalize U1e approval of U1e revisions to the SIP which bring ADEC's major 

NNSR regulations in 18 A.AC SO up to date with current Clean Air Act and EPA requirements. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Rebecca Smith at (907) 465-5121. 

Thank you for your attention in this matter. 

Alice Edwards, Director 

Division of Air Quality 

cc: Debra Suzuki, EPA, Region 10 

Kristin Hall, EPA, Region 10 

Larry Hartig, ADEC/Commissioner 

Lynn Kent, ADEC/Dcputy Commissioner 

John Kuterbach, ADEC/ APP Manager 

Clea11Air
§ 776.18 Preamble. ( a ) A covered attorney is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system, an officer of the Federal Government, and a public citizen who has a special responsibility for the quality of justice and legal services provided to the DoN and to individual clients. These Rules of Professional Conduct (Subpart B of this part) govern the ethical conduct of covered attorneys practicing under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the MCM, 10 U.S.C. 1044 (Legal Assistance), other laws of the United States, and regulations of the DoN.
( b ) Subpart B of this part not only address the professional conduct of judge advocates, but also apply to all other covered attorneys who practice under the cognizance and supervision of the Navy JAG.
( c ) All covered attorneys are subject to professional disciplinary action, as outlined in this part, for violation of subpart B of this part. Action on allegations of professional or personal misconduct undertaken per subpart B of this part does not prevent other Federal, state, or local bar associations, or other licensing authorities, from taking professional disciplinary or other administrative action for the same or similar conduct.
### Respondent Burden

average of state submissions June 2008 Page 1 of 2

1 2 3

4
5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V

Information Collection Activity 

### Total Avg. R3 R4 R5 R6 Avg.R3 R4 R5 R6 Avg.R3 R4 R5 R6 Avg.R3 R4 R5 R6 Avg. 1. Pre-review and Offsite metrics Review elements and metrics and prepare data discrepency response 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 4 126.2560 30 15 3635.250 0 0 0 0
Train/brief state staff & managers on review substance and process 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 12 24 11 8 12 21 4020.250 0 0 0 0 collect files, policies, data sets, reports, etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 4 20 12 21 2419.250 0 0 0 0

2. Onsite Review Participate in multi-media kick-off meeting 0 0 0 3 0.75 4 0 0 8 3 4 8 0 24 9 0 0 0 0 0 Assist/facilitate EPA review of files and data sets 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 48 4029.590 64 216140127.50 0 0 0 0 Participate in discussion of program with EPA 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 6 3 8 8 18 14 12 0 0 0 0 0 3. Report Review Review and comment on draft report 0 0 0 0 0 20 10 32 2421.512 120 72 120 81 0 0 0 0 0 4. Coordination of Parts 1, 2 & 3 Coordination of review within the state agency 0 0 0 0 0 10 8 0 82.8898 24 0 12 11 0 0 0 0 0 Coordination of review with EPA 

### 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 82.33324 32 0 12 17 0 0 0 0 0

Total hours 0.75 83.47 332.3 0 

### 416 Legal: Manag.: Tech.: Clerical:
### §2213. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts June 5, 1952, ch. 369, ch. XI, §1101, 66 Stat. 121; 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §3, eff. June 4, 1953, 18 F.R. 3219, 67 Stat. 633; June 28, 1955, ch. 189, §12(c)(16), 69 Stat. 182; Aug. 14, 1964, Pub. L. 88–426, title III, §307, 78 Stat. 432, related to the position of Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Administration established by section 3 of Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1953. Section 3 of Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1953 was repealed by Pub. L. 97–325, §8(d), Oct. 15, 1982, 96 Stat. 1606. See section 2212c of this title.

Section was formerly classified to section 517b of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.
No. 678.

#### Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company *v.*O. C. Swaim.

March 8, 1920.

*Mr. Joseph G. Gamble, Mr. Thomas P. Littlepage*and *Mr. Sidney F. Taliaferro*for petitioner.

*Harriet B. Evans*for respondent.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa denied.
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P - 76, 265 EX PA R TE STA N LE Y W A Y N E K I R K PA TR I C K , A ppl i c ant O N A PPL I C A TIO N FO R A W R I T O F H A BE A S C O R PU S CAUS E N O. 2 0 0 4 - 4 7 4 - C2 I N T HE 5 4 DI S TR I CT COURT TH FROM M CLENNAN CO UNTY P RI CE , J. , f

i l e d a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on. CONCURR I NG OP I NI ON ON RE HEAR I NG I n t hi s appl i cat i on for a w r i t of habea s corpus , t he appl i cant or i gi nal l y r eques t ed r el i ef on J ul y6, 2009, bas ed on i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el
. B eca us e t he t r i al j udge w as not ful l yr es pons i ve t o t hi s C our t ’ s or deron ourfi r s tr emand, w e s ubs eq u en tl yr emanded t he appl i cat i on a sec ond t i m e i n l at e N ovember , onl yt w o m ont hs befor e the appl i cant ’ s s ent ence
w a s s c h e d u led to d isc h a rg e . A f ter re c e iv in g th e re s p o n s e to o u r se c o n d re m a n d o rd e r, in

w hi ch t he convi ct i ng cour t found t hat t he appl i cant had notbeen a ppoi nt ed appe l l at e couns el unt i l m ont hs aft erthe d eadl i ne forfi l i ng a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l and found thatt he appl i cantcoul d be ent i t l ed t o an out - of- t i m e appeal , w e now gr antt he appl i cantan out - of-Kirkpatric k — 2

1 I f a n a pp lic ant’ s sentenc e ha s disc ha rg e d, thi s Cour

t will dis mis s h is a

pp lic atio n. Hewo uld thenh av e to f

il e a s e c o n d a p p li c ati o n , wh e r e in

h e w o u ld

b e r e qu ire d

to id e nti f

y c o ll ateral conseque nces. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 11.07 § 3(c ). tim e a p p e a l. A s cl ear l ys een i n t hi s cas e, unnece s s aril y rem andi ng w r i tappl i cat i ons has t he pot ent i al t o bot h hamst r i ng appl i cant s and w as t e j udi ci al r es our ces . Pr es um abl y , had the t r i al j udge appoi nt ed appe l l at e co u ns el i n a t i m el ym annerorans w er ed ourfi r s tr emand or der adequa t el y , t he appl i cantw oul d nothave be en pot ent i al l ypr ej udi ced bybei ng di sch arg ed befor e anyr el i ef c oul d be gra nt ed. M or eover , m uch of the t i m e s pentr evi ew i ng t he 1 appl i cat i on m ul t i pl e t i m es coul d have be en us ed i n ot herj udi ci al pur s ui t s . I agr ee w i t h t he dis po si t i on of thi s appli cat i on . I w ri t e on l yt o ad d that, in the fu ture, I w ou l d ad vis e
c o n v ictin g c o u rts to a c t p ro m p tlyin d isc h a rg in g th e ir d u ties w ith re sp e c t to h a b e a s a p p lica n ts
a n d to re sp o n d a p p ro p ria telyto o rd e rs is su e d b yth is C o u rt.

D el i ver ed: Februar y24, 2010 D o N otPubl i s h
### §415a–2. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 415a–2, comprising section 8107 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. 110–329, div. C, and also of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. 110–329, was editorially reclassified as section 3305 of this title.
**UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION**

# THE  SECRETARY

MEMORANDUM

TO:THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF

FROM:THE SECRETARY

SUBJECT:Delegation of Authority

I.DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by section 412 of the Department of Education Organization Act (DEOA) (Public Law 96-88), 20 U.S.C. § 3472, I hereby delegate to you for employees in the Office of the Secretary the authority described in 34 C.F.R. Part 8 regarding demands issued to Departmental employees for testimony or records in legal proceedings. This authority only applies to legal proceedings in which the United States is not a party.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the existing authorities delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II.RESERVATIONS

This authority should be exercised in consultation with the Office of the General Counsel. 

III. REDELEGATION

No other redelegation is permitted.

IV. CERTTFTCATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal Delegation Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this authority.

__________/s/___________

                          Richard W. Riley

OGC Clearance and Date:  /s/ R. Wexler, 5/26/1994

Certified on:  7/23/2003

Departmental Delegations Control Officer:  /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number:  **EA/EA/14**
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 54944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21975]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8016]

In the Matter of the Designation of The Communist Party of Nepal 
(Maoist) Also Known as United Revolutionary People's Council Also Known 
as People's Liberation Army of Nepal Also Known as CPN(M) Pursuant to 
Section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(INA), as Amended

    Acting under the authority of Section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of the 
INA, I hereby revoke the designation of the Communist Party of Nepal 
(Maoist), also known as United Revolutionary People's Council, also 
known as People's Liberation Army of Nepal, also known as CPN(M), as a 
``terrorist organization'' under Section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of the 
INA.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: August 28, 2012.
Wendy R. Sherman,
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2012-21975 Filed 9-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2578

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Jesus Francisco Ramirez-Garcia, *

also known as Francisco Ramirez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 4, 2011

Filed: February 9, 2011

___________

Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jesus Francisco Ramirez-Garcia appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following a conviction for an

aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Counsel seeks to

withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. Ramirez-Garcia has filed a pro se

supplemental brief arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.
 First, we decline to consider the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. 

See United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998) (ineffective-assistance

claim should be raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion). Further, we conclude that the

district court committed no procedural error in sentencing Ramirez-Garcia, and

imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,

51 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court

committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive

reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v.

Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing ways in which court might

abuse its discretion at sentencing).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave

to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
### §5651. Repealed. Pub. L. 110–246, title III, §3103(a), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1832

Section, Pub. L. 95–501, title III, §301, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1531, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3678; amended Pub. L. 102–237, title III, §311, Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1856; Pub. L. 102–511, title VII, §709(b), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3352; Pub. L. 103–465, title IV, §411(a)(3), (4), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4963; Pub. L. 104–127, title II, §245, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 968; Pub. L. 107–171, title III, §3104(a), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 290, related to an export enhancement program and cash bonuses to exporters, users, and processors.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective May 22, 2008, see section 4(b) of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.
### 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

142447

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 142447 COA: 293746 Leelanau CC: 08-001599-FC MICHAEL DOUGLAS LIGHT, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 23, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented shou ld be reviewed by this Court.
[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: Opticalproperties of Saturn�s rings: I. transmission**
 
PDF | Mobi | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:SI 1.12/2:2/13
Item Number:0909-B (online)
CGP systemNumber:001059507
 
June 4, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          54,973
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  162,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,058
<INVENTORY>                                    228,092
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               478,628
<PP&E>                                         230,761
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 896,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          219,650
<BONDS>                                        138,468
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,614
<OTHER-SE>                                     435,226
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   896,345
<SALES>                                        376,108<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               376,108
<CGS>                                          281,318<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  281,318
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,166
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 51,566
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,159
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,407
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,407
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73
<FN>
<F1>This amount is not disclosed in the financial statements and thus a value of
zero has been shown for purposes of this financial data schedule.
<F2>These line items include certain amounts related to non-tangible products
(i.e.,) services, however, since the amounts related to services are not
disclosed in the financial statements, the total revenue and CGS figures,
respectively, have been shown on these line items for purposes of this
financial data schedule.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### §2114. Rules and regulations

The Secretary is authorized to make such regulations with the force and effect of law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter and the powers vested in him by this chapter.

(Pub. L. 89–502, §15, July 13, 1966, 80 Stat. 285.)
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES WAYNE MUNSEY

417A95-2

(Filed 6 November 1997)

ORDER

Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1418, Defendant’s Second Motion for Appropriate Relief (Amended) filed in this Court on 20 October 1997 is allowed for the purpose of entering the following order:

Defendant’s Motion for Appropriate Relief is hereby remanded to the Superior Court, Wilkes County.

It is further ordered that an evidentiary hearing be held on the aforesaid motion and that the resulting order containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial judge determining the motion be transmitted to this Court so that it may proceed with the appeal or enter an order terminating the appeal. Time periods for perfecting or proceeding with the appeal are tolled pending receipt of the order of disposition of the motion in the Trial Division.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 6th day of November, 1997.

Orr, J.

For the Court