alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[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:****What you need to know aboutbreast cancer**
 
PDF | Mobi | epub
 
SuDoc:HE 20.3152:B 74/6/2012
Item Number:0507-G-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000910637
 
December 12, 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         121,875
<SECURITIES>                                   619,412
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,796
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,960
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               965,685
<PP&E>                                         341,234
<DEPRECIATION>                                 109,779
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,212,119
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          419,215
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     30,000
<COMMON>                                        10,409
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,752,495
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,212,119
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               281,988
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (138,518)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (138,518)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (138,518)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR DECEMBER 31, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 (UNAUDITED)
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,355
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,733
<PP&E>                                       2,956,092
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (40,760)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,015,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          320,170
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    428,823
<COMMON>                                         8,593
<OTHER-SE>                                     (67,521)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,015,065
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,555        
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,739
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,706
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (53,378)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (53,378)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)
        

</TABLE>
NCG 

NOBLES CONSULTING GROUP, I NC 

February 19,2016 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

West Building- Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Regarding: Exemption No. 12693- Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-1510 

Dear Madam or Sir, 

2844 PABLO AVENUE 

TALLAHASSEE, FL 32308 

P: 850.385.1179 

F: 850.385.1404 

Nobles Consulting Group (NCG) currently holds Exemption No 12693 allowing operation of a 

DJI Phantom II for purposes of supporting Surveying and Mapping operations. We respectfully 

request to amend our current exemption to expand on the type of sUAS we would like to 

operate and to expand the purposes for which we would like to operate. 

We would like to amend our exemption to include the following aircraft: SteadiDrone Mavrik X8, 

Altavian F7200, Altavian F6500, as well as the Altavian R8400, DJI Phantom Ill, and the 

Yuneec Tornado. 

Also, we would like to expand on the type of services that we are authorized to provide beyond 

what our current authorization allows. We would like to include aerial services for infrastructure 

inspection, precision agriculture, wildlife and forest monitoring, construction site inspection, 

surface mining inspection, disaster recovery, catastrophic events, and geographic information 

systems (GIS). 

If more information is necessary for approval of our amendment request please contact me at 

your earliest convenience. 

David W. Mason 

;L Nobles Consulting Group 

2844 Pablo Ave 

Tallahassee, FL 32308 

david@ncginc.com 

PENSACOLA NICEVILLE CHIPLEY TALLAHASSEE
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 6, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10524

Summary Calendar

 

JESUS ANTONIO ARBALLO-MARQUEZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF TEXAS,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CV-00204

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Antonio Arballo-Marquez (Arballo), currently federal

prisoner # 33643-077, seeks to appeal the district court’s denial

of his purported 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a state

court drug conviction that was used to enhance his current

federal sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. The

State of Texas, the respondent-appellee in this action, has moved

for leave to supplement the record. This motion is GRANTED. 
No. 03-10524

-2-

The respondent also moves for dismissal of the appeal,

asserting that because the district court lacks jurisdiction,

this court lacks jurisdiction as well. This court may review a

district court’s determination that it lacked subject matter

jurisdiction over a case. See Home Builders Ass’n of Miss. v.

City of Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). 

However, a review of the arguments presented by the respondents,

of the appellate brief submitted by Arballo, and of the record

reveal that Arballo’s arguments against the district court’s

rulings are frivolous. Because Arballo is no longer “in custody”

for his state sentences, he may not proceed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. See Pleasant v. Texas, 134 F.3d 1256, 1258 (5th Cir.

1998). Arballo may not proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because he

is challenging errors occurring before his trial and sentencing

rather than the execution of his sentence. See Jeffers v.

Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

1001 (2001). Arballo may not proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

because he did not file his action in the sentencing court and

because he did not name his current custodian as the respondent. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 1; Pleasant, 134 F.3d at 1258.

This court may dismiss an appeal upon review of an

interlocutory motion if the appeal appears frivolous. 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. Therefore, the respondent’s motion to dismiss is

GRANTED, and Arballo’s appeal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is

DISMISSED.
----

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-226/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/82/EC - Major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 294/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima, Agent)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure fully to transpose Articles 8(2)(b), 11, 12 and 24(1) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court (Fifth Chamber):

----

(1)OJ C 171, 09.07.2005.

----
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T W I LL I AM D. DU NN E, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. D . S M I T H ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 16342 D. C. No . 1 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 0 7 4 - BL W ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia B . L y nn W i nm i l l , C hi e f Judge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r9, 2012 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , M U R G U IA , an dW A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F ed er al p riso n erW il li am D . D u n n e ap p ea ls p ro se fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s sum m ary j ud gm enti n h i s a ct i on brou gh tun der B i ve ns v. Si x U nkno w n N

am ed A gent s of FederalB ureau o

f N arcot i cs , 403 U . S . 388 ( 1971) , a l l e gi ng tha tapr i s on



# FI LED OC T 17 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 16342 2 p o lic yr e s tr ic tin g a c c e s s to n e w s p ap e r s an dm a g a z in e s in th e S p e c ia l H o u s in g U n it vi ol a t e d hi s F i r s tand F i f th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . Mo rr is o n v . H a ll , 26 1 F . 3d 89 6, 90 0 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) . W e a f

f irm . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm entbecause D un ne fa i l ed to r a is e ag e n u in e d is p u te o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rth e p o lic yis n o t r e a s o n ab ly r e la te dto le g itim a te p e n o lo g ic a l in te r e s ts . Se e id. at90 1 (“ [A ] re gu l at i on that im p in g e s up o n ap r is o n e r ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts is v a lidif th e r e g u la tio n is re as on abl y r el at ed t o l egi t i m at e penol og i ca l i nt er es t s. ” ( ci t at i on s and i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed)) . N or di d D un ne ra i se a genui ne di sput e of m at er i alfa ct a s to w h e th e rh e w a s a c tu a llyd e n ie da c c e s s to th e law lib r aryan dr e a d in g m a te r ia l. See W . R ad i o Servs . C o. v. U

. S. Fores t

Serv . , 578 F . 3d 1116, 1119 ( 9th C i r . 2009) (di sc ussi ng the re qu i re m ent s of a B i v e ns ac t i on , i ncl ud i ng the depri vat i on of a fe dera l ri gh t ). AF F I RME D.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, September 1, 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Dave Coffman at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6095.                               ( print page 39378)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, September 1, 2009, at 1 p.m. Pacific Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Dave Coffman. For more information please contact Mr. Coffman at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6095, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues. 

Dated: July 30, 2009. 

Shawn F. Collins, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E9-18777 Filed 8-5-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 2, 2020

No. 04-19-00807-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.T., A CHILD,

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-PA-00140

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant Dad filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s “Order of Termination” 

signed on October 29, 2019. 

The clerk’s record includes the trial court’s handwritten notes from that date, but a

judge’s notes “are not the kind of document[] that constitute[s] a judgment, decision or order 

from which an appeal may be taken.” See Goff v. Tuchscherer, 627 S.W.2d 397, 398–99 (Tex. 

1982); In re Rivera, No. 04-12-00025-CV, 2012 WL 219591, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 

Jan. 25, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“A copy of the judge’s notes in place of an order is not 

sufficient.”); see also In re A.W., 384 S.W.3d 872, 873 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.)

(“[A] judge’s notes are for his or her own convenience and form no part of the record.”).

We ORDER Appellant to show cause in writing within TEN DAYS of the date of this 

order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a). If Appellant does not timely provide written proof as ordered, this appeal will be 

dismissed. See id. 

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of January, 2020.
___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16** 
**- 7187** 

JOSHUA ADAM CONLAN ,
Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
ERIC D. WILSON, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O’Grady , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv
- 00116

- LO

- MSN )

Submitted : December 1 5 , 201 6 Decided: December 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Joshua Adam Conlan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Joshua Adam Conlan , a federal prisoner , appeals the district

court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)
petition. We h ave reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we affirm the judgment of the district court . We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately p resented in the materials before th is court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 147 (Monday, August 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 38421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18399]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DoD-2008-OS-0145]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by 
September 2, 2009.
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: USMEPCOM MEPS Customer Satisfaction 
Survey, OMB Control Number 0704-TBD.
    Type of Request: New.
    Number of Respondents: 60,000.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 60,000.
    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 10,000.
    Needs and Uses: This information collection requirement is 
necessary to aid the MEPS in evaluating effectiveness of current 
policies and core processes, identifying unmet customer needs, and 
allocating resources more efficiently.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: May 22, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-18399 Filed 7-31-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### § 1.812-7 Application of subtitle A and subtitle F.

Section 812(f) provides that except as modified by section 809(e) (relating to modifications of deduction items otherwise allowable under subtitle A of the Code) subtitles A and F of the Code shall apply to operations loss carrybacks and carryovers, and to the operations loss deduction, in the same manner and to the same extent that such subtitles apply in respect of net operation loss carrybacks, net operating loss carryovers, and the net operating loss deduction of corporations generally. For the computation of the operations loss carrybacks and carryovers, and of the operations loss deduction in the case of certain acquisitions of the assets of a life insurance company by another life insurance company, see section 381(c)(22) and the regulations thereunder.

[T.D. 6535, 26 FR 539, Jan. 20, 1961]
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 18

- 00207

- CV

IN RE DPA'S ASSIST T HE OFFICER FOUNDATIO N, INC.

Original Proceeding

ORDER

DPA’S Assist the Officer Foundation, Inc. petition ed this Court to issue a writ of
mandamus directing Respondent, the Honorable Wayne Bridewell, Judge of the 249th
Judicial District Court, to vacate his order signed on May 31, 2018 granting Katrina Ahrens’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents. On June 1, 2018, Judge Bridewell
recused himself in the underlying case and requested the Administrative Judge to assign
another judge. On June 5, 2018, the Honorable David Evans, the Administrate Judge
ordered that the underlying case be transferred from the 249 th Judicial District Court to
the 18th District Court, the Honorable John Neill, presiding.
By orders issued August 22, 2018 and October 17, 2018, we abated this proceeding
to the newly assigned trial court judge for consideration of Ahrens’ Motion to Comp elIn re DPA's Assist the Officer Foundation, Inc. Page 2

Production of Documents. In a Joint Status Report filed on October 31, 2018, we have
been informed by the parties that Judge Neill found the order rendered by Judge

Bridewell on Ahrens’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents to be “in all things,

app ropriate,” and declined “to amend, reverse or change in any manner, said order.”
In light of Judge Neill ’s ruling, the parties request that Ahrens be permitted to file
a response by November 9, 2018 to DPA’S Assist the Officer Foundation, Inc. ’s petition

for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, this proceeding is reinstated, the parties’ request is granted, and
Ahrens’ response to the petition for writ of mandamus is due November 9, 2018.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Just ice Scoggins Appeal reinstated Order issued and filed November 7 , 2018