alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40562 Conference Calendar

MARCO ANTONIO ZAPATA, III, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus MICHAEL PURDY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-98-CV-561

-------------------- December 14, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marco Antonio Zapata III (“Zapata”), federal prisoner # 24879-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He alleges that his due process rights were violated after a disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) found him in violation of Bureau of Prison (“BOP”) Code # 113A for aiding another inmate in the possession of marijuana and sanctioned him with the loss of 41 days’ good-conduct time. Zapata argues that there was no evidence to support the DHO’s finding.No. 99-40562 -2- Zapata’s argument fails. “[P]rison disciplinary proceedings will be overturned only where there is no evidence whatsoever to support the decision of the prison officials.” Reeves v.
Pettcox , 19 F.3d 1060, 1062 (5th Cir. 1994). “A de novo factual review is not required.” Id. “[T]he requirements of due process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary board to revoke good-time credits.” Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Inst., Walpole v. Hill , 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Because some evidence supports the DHO’s decision to revoke good-time credits, this court AFFIRMS the district court’s judgment.
2006-0396.

#### State v. Troglin.

Union App. No. 14-04-41, 2005-Ohio-6562. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted.

Resnick, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.
§ 15e.110 Self-evaluation. ( a ) The agency shall, by November 28, 1994, evaluate its current policies and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part and, to the extent modification of any such policies and practices is required, the agency shall proceed to make the necessary modifications.
( b ) The agency shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with handicaps or organizations representing individuals with handicaps, to participate in the self-evaluation process by submitting comments (both oral and written).
( c ) The agency shall, for at least three years following completion of the self-evaluation, maintain on file and make available for public inspection: ( 1 ) A description of areas examined and any problems identified; and
( 2 ) A description of any modifications made.
#### § 1774.9 [Reserved]
§ 1a.1 General statement. This part sets forth the rules issued by the Secretary of Agriculture to implement section 1337 of Public Law 97-98 relating to: ( a ) Arrests without warrant for certain criminal felony violations;
( b ) Execution of warrants for arrests, searches of premises and seizures of evidence; and
( c ) The carrying of firearms by designated officials of the Office of Inspector General.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.700 OMB control number.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for the information collection in this subpart is 0575-0115.

[62 FR 26211, May 13, 1997]
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 A0 89 8 . SAM LOUI S LEVI NE v . DAVI D NAHMI AS et a l

.

In t h i s ci v i l act i on , p lai n t i ff Sam L o ui s Lev i n e fi led a n o t i ce o f ap p eal o f t h e

t ri al co urt ’ s o rd er s t ay i n g d i s co v ery

. H o w e v e r, becau s e t h e cas e rem ai ns p en d i n g

b el o w, Lev i n e was r e q u ired t o u s e t h e i n t erl o cu to ry ap p eal p ro ced u res – i n cl u d i n g

o b t ai n i n g a cert i fi cat e o f i m m ed i at e rev iew fro m t h e t ri al co u rt

– t o ap p eal th e o rd er.

See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b ); Bo yd v. S t a te

, 1 9 1 Ga. Ap p

. 4 3 5

, 4 3 5 ( 3 8 3 S E 2 d 9 0 6 )

(1 9 8 9); s ee al so Jo hn s o n & Jo h n s o n v. Ka u f ma n , 2 2 6 G a. Ap p

. 7 7, 7 8 (4 85 SE2 d

5 2 5 ) (1 9 9 7 ) (d i s co v ery o rd ers g en eral l y are i n terl o cu to ry an d n o t d irect l y ap p eal ab l e

as fi n al ju d g m en t s). L ev i n e’ s fai l u r e t o d o s o d ep ri ves u s of ju ri s d ict i on o v er t h i s

ap p eal

, w h i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED. S e e B a i l e y v. Ba i l ey , 2 6 6 G a. 8 3 2

, 8 3 3 (4 7 1

SE2 d 2 1 3) (1 9 9 6).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. February 18, 2020

02/18/2020
Editorial Note on Part 1980
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1980.1002 Programs. The Agency may elect to reserve funds from one or more programs for projects that support Strategic Community Investment Plans. The programs chosen for a given fiscal year will be announced annually in a notice published in the Federal Register. The authorized programs are: ( a ) Community Facility Loans (7 CFR part 1942, subpart A).
( b ) Community Facilities Grant Program (7 CFR part 3570, subpart B).
( c ) Community Programs Guaranteed Loans (7 CFR part 3575, subpart A).
( d ) Water and Waste Disposal Programs Guaranteed Loans (7 CFR part 1779).
( e ) Water and Waste Loans and Grants (7 CFR part 1780, subparts A, B, C, and D).
( f ) Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans (7 CFR part 4279, subparts A and B; 7 CFR part 4287, subpart B).
( g ) Rural Business Development Grants (7 CFR part 4280, subpart E).
( h ) Community Connect Grant (7 CFR part 1739).
( i ) Rural Community Development Initiative Grant (2 CFR part 200).
( j ) Tribal College Initiative Grants (7 CFR part 3570, subpart B).
( k ) Intermediary Relending Program (7 CFR part 4274).
( l ) Mutual Self-Help Housing Technical Assistance Grants (7 CFR part 1944, subpart I).
( m ) Rural Housing Site Loans (7 CFR part 1822, subpart G).
( n ) Housing Preservation Grants (7 CFR part 1994, subpart N; 7 CFR part 1970, subparts A and O).
( o ) Farm Labor Housing Direct Loans and Grants (7 CFR part 3560, subparts L and M).
( p ) Multi-Family Housing Loan Guarantees (7 CFR part 3565).
( q ) Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans and Grants (7 CFR part 1734).
( r ) Rural Energy for America Program (7 CFR part 4280, subpart B).
( s ) Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants (7 CFR part 4280).
( t ) Rural Energy Savings Program (7 U.S.C. 8107a).
( u ) Value-Added Producer Grants (7 U.S.C. 1632a).
( v ) Household Water Well System Grant Program (7 CFR part 1776).
( w ) Solid Waste Management Grant (7 CFR part 1775, subpart D).
[85 FR 59393, Sept. 22, 2020]
Exhibit 23.1


                             CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP

        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statement on Form S-3 No. 33-37441 of Phosphate Resource Partners 
Limited Partnership and in the related Prospectus of our report dated January 
28, 1999, with respect to the financial statements and schedules of 
Phosphate Resource Partners Limited Partnership included in this Annual 
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.




                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                ------------------------------------
                                           ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Chicago, Illinois
March 30, 1999
#### GUMBS v. GUMBS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by Josephine M. Gumbs against Medora Gumbs.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. Order filed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Brian Carter, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Dirt Motor Sports, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresas of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the“Evaluation Date”); andc) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any materialweaknesses in internal controls; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly reportwhether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors thatcould significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.     Date: November 2, 2005 /s/ Brian Carter     Brian Carter,
#### In the Matter of the Village of Hilton, Petitioner, v. Town of Parma, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously granted in favor of petitioner that the proposed annexation is in the over-all public interest, without costs. Memorandum: After receiving the report of the Referees and hearing oral arguments thereon, we adopt and confirm as our adjudication and determination the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the report. (Motion to confirm Report of Referees Dye, Brasser and O’Mara, JJ., and for judgment pursuant to General Municipal Law, § 712.) Present—Williams, P, J., Bastow, Goldman, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby  given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and  552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential  trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals  associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of  personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Grants Review Committee.                    

*Date:*                         February 24-25, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         7:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Residence Inn Bethesda-By Marriott, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Helen Lin, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, NIH/NIAMS/RB, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 800, Plaza One, Bethesda, MD 20817. 301-594-4952.                          *linh1@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases  Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 29, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-2889 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 1962
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1962 appear at 80 FR 9902, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1962.6 Liens and assignments on chattel property. ( a ) *Chattel property not covered by Agency lien.* ( 1 ) When additional chattel property not presently covered by an Agency lien is available and needed to protect the Government's interest, the County Supervisor will obtain one or more of the following: ( i ) A lien on such property.
( ii ) An assignment of the proceeds from the sale of agricultural products when such products are not covered by the lien instruments.
( iii ) An assignment of other income, including FSA Farm Programs (formerly ASCS) payments.
( 2 ) When a current loan is not being made to a borrower, a crop lien will be taken as additional security when the County Supervisor determines in individual cases that it is needed to protect the Government's interests. However, a crop lien will not be taken as additional security for Farm Ownership (FO), Rural Housing (RH), Labor Housing (LH), and Soil and Water (SW) loans. When a new security agreement or chattel mortgage is taken, all existing security items will be described on it.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Assignments of upland cotton, rice, wheat and feed grain payments.* Borrowers may assign FSA Farm Programs (formerly ASCS) payments under upland cotton, rice, wheat and feed grain programs. ( 1 ) *Obtaining assignments.* Assignments will be obtained as follows: ( i ) Only when it appears necessary to collect operating-type loans.
( ii ) Only for the crop year for which operating-type loans are made, and
( iii ) For only the amount anticipated for payments as indicated on Form RD 1962-1, “Agreement for the Use of Proceeds/Release of Chattel Security,” of the applicable upland cotton, rice, wheat and feed grain programs.
( 2 ) *Selecting counties.* The County Supervisor then will: ( i ) Determine, at the time of loan processing for indebted borrowers and new applicants, who must give assignments and obtain them no later than loan closing. Special efforts will be made to obtain the bulk of assignments before the sign-up period for enrolling in the annual Feed Grain and Wheat set aside programs.
( ii ) Obtain assignments from selected borrowers on Form ASCS-36, “Assignments of Payment,” which will be obtained from FSA Farm Programs.
( 3 ) *Releasing assignments and handling checks.* ( i ) The County Supervisor will inform FSA Farm Programs that releasing its assignment whenever a borrower pays the amount due for the year on the operating-type loan debt or pays the debt in full.
( ii ) Checks obtained as a result of an assignment will be made only to the Agency, and the proceeds used as indicated on Form RD 1962-1.
[61 FR 35929, July 9, 1996]
WILLIE RAYMOND PETTY,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1013

Opinion filed July 1, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

Willie Raymond Petty, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed as untimely filed. See Fla. R. 

App. P. 9.100(c)(1).

THOMAS, ROBERTS, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### § 1703.310 Environmental considerations.

Prospective recipients of funds received from the deferment of loan payments are encouraged to consider the potential environmental impact of their proposed projects at the earliest planning stage and plan development in a manner that reduces, to the extent practicable, the potential to affect the quality of the human environment adversely.
#### Thomas Giles KAVANAGH, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of Giles Kavanaugh, Deceased, Appellant, v. Abraham M. HERSHMAN and Miriam Hershman, Appellees.

No. 11970.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 17, 1954.

H. Brian Holland, Ellis N. Slack, Lor-ing W. Post, Washington, D. C., Fred W. Kaess, Roger P. O’Connor and Rich*655ard M. Roberts, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Levin, Levin, Garvett & Dill, Detroit, Mich., for appellee.

Before ALLEN, MARTIN and Mc-ALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard upon the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel;

On consideration whereof it is ordered that the judgment of the United States District Court be and it hereby is affirmed upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the District Court. See also Mutch v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 209 F.2d 390.
1

Sutton, Tia

From: Timothy.Mullins@dot.gov

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 1:27 PM

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov; Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov

Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov; Sutton, Tia; Hengst, Benjamin; Spears, Matthew

Subject: FW: HD FE GHG Phase 2 - Preamble CLEAN and REDLINE

Attachments: Preamble w REGS for Fed Reg - REDLINE to 052815.docx; Preamble w REGS for Fed Reg 

- CLEAN 061815.docx

Importance: High

Chad and Chandana, 

Attached please find the final NPRM Preamble, both clean and redlines from the May 28, 2015 version that was sent to 

you previously. Because of the large file size, please confirm that you have received all of the files. 

Note that the page count will vary depending on the version of MS Word the document is opened with, and therefore 

the documents the page number references on the last 2 pages may not align with the document page numbers. We 

have observed a difference of 5 pages when using Word 2010 and Word 2013. The printed version that goes to the 

Federal Register may have a different page count than what you observe when reviewing the document now, although 

there will be no differences in the content. 

Please let us know when ROCIS is open for amendment. 

Thanks, 

Tim
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Beales and Senior Judge Annunziata 

MISTY GIBSON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0014-09-3 PER CURIAM 

MAY 26, 2009 

ROANOKE CITY DEPARTMENT 

 OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE 

William D. Broadhurst, Judge 

 (Thomas E. Wray, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on 

brief. 

 (William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Heather P. Ferguson, 

Assistant City Attorney, on brief), for appellee. Appellee 

submitting on brief. 

 (Marta J. Anderson, on brief), Guardian ad litem for the minor child. 

Guardian ad litem submitting on brief. 

 Misty Gibson (mother) appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her 

son, N.B., under Code § 16.1-283(C)(1), (C)(2) and (E). On appeal, mother challenges the proof 

of conditions necessary for termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and (C)(2), and does 

not challenge the proof of conditions necessary for termination under Code § 16.1-283(E). For 

the following reason, we affirm the trial court’s decision. 

In Fields v. Dinwiddie County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 3, 614 S.E.2d 656, 

657 (2005), a parent appealed to this Court from the trial court’s decision to terminate her 

parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) and Code § 16.1-283(E)(i). On appeal, she 

contended the evidence did not support the termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), but she did 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the termination pursuant to Code 

§ 16.1-283(E)(i). This Court found that, in light of the unchallenged termination pursuant to 

Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), it was not required to consider the sufficiency of the evidence to support 

the termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Fields, 46 Va. App. at 8, 614 S.E.2d at 659. 

Here, likewise, mother does not challenge the termination pursuant to Code 

§ 16.1-283(E). Accordingly, we need not consider mother’s challenge to the termination under 

Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and (C)(2). 

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision. 

Affirmed.