alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 157 (Monday, August 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41414-41415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19606]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13407-000]


Clean River Power MR-2, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

August 6, 2009.
    On March 25, 2009, Clean River Power MR-2, LLC filed an 
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Lowell Lock and Dam Water 
Power Project, to be located at the State of Ohio's Lowell lock and dam 
on the Muskingum River in Washington County, Ohio.
    The proposed Lowell Lock and Dam Project would consist of: (1) The 
existing 17.5-foot-high, 840-foot-long concrete dam; (2) the existing 
628-acre reservoir with a 4,492 acre-foot storage capacity; (3) a new 
180-foot-long, 100-foot-wide intake structure; (4) a 150-foot-long, 
100-foot-wide power canal; (5) a new powerhouse containing three 
proposed generating units with a total installed capacity of 4.8 
megawatts; (6) a new 250-foot-long tailrace; (7) a new switchyard 
containing a single three-phase step-up transformer; and (8) a new 
2,000-foot-long, 34.5-kilovolt overhead transmission line. The project 
would have an estimated average annual generation of 19,300 megawatt-
hours.

[[Page 41415]]

    Applicant Contact: Mr. Alan Skelly, 8425 Beechmont Avenue, 
Cincinnati, OH 45255, phone (513) 375-9242.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer, (202) 502-6093.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at 
http:[sol][sol]www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket 
number (P-13407) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19606 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### Leathia A. Cheek et al., Respondents, v County of Nassau et al., Defendants, and Vincent Farinella et al., Appellants.

[805 NYS2d 633]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Vincent Farinella and Marlene Farinella appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), entered August 16, 2004, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to direct the plaintiffs to provide authorizations for psychiatric records, and (2) an order of the same court dated January 6, 2005, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination and denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered August 16, 2004, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by that portion *600of the order dated January 6, 2005, which was made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 6, 2005, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff Leathia A. Cheek allegedly was struck by a car driven by the appellant Vincent Farinella as she was standing in the middle lane of three traffic lanes on Sunrise Highway. The appellants contend that Cheek appeared out of nowhere, wearing all black clothing, on a dark, foggy, drizzling morning. The appellants sought authorizations to examine Cheek’s psychiatric records, contending that whether she was suicidal at the time of the accident was clearly at issue.

Contrary to the appellants’ claim, Cheek, who has been in a persistent comatose state since the accident, did not place her mental condition in issue. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion to compel the plaintiffs to provide authorizations for the release of the psychiatric records *(see Valerio v Staten Is. Hosp.,*220 AD2d 580 [1995]).

Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment, since there are triable issues of fact regarding Farinella’s alleged negligence and whether he exercised due care to avoid the accident. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
39287.

#### CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY v. BROWER.

Frankum, Judge.

The judgment of this court *(Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Brower,*106 Ga. App. 340, 127 SE2d 33), has been reversed by the Supreme Court of Georgia, and in so doing that court held that the evidence demanded a verdict for the defendant Central of Georgia Railway Company, and that the defendant’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the *217verdict should have been sustained. *Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Brower,*218 Ga. 525 (128 SE2d 926). Therefore, the judgment of this court holding to the contrary is hereby vacated and set aside, and it is hereby ordered that the judgment of the Supreme Court be and the same is hereby made the judgment of this court. The judgment of the trial court overruling the defendant’s motion for a judgment nothwithstanding the verdict is hereby reversed in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court, and direction is given that judgment be entered for the defendant in accordance with its motion for directed verdict.

Decided January 11, 1963.

*Edmund A. Landau, Jr., Farkas, Landau & Davis,*for plaintiff in error.

*D. C. Campbell, Jr., II. G. Bawls, Burt & Burt, H. P. Burt,*contra.

*Judgment reversed with direction.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
I

★

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1112

To transfer management of the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge in

Oklahoma to the State of Oklahoma.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 2, 1995

Mr. BREWSTER (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. COBURN, Mr.

ISTOOK, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. BAESLER, Mr. BAKER of California, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr.

BARCIA, Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska, Mr. BONILLA, Mr. BROWDER, Mr.

CAMP, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. COBLE, Mr. CONDIT, Mr. CRAMER, Mr.

CRAPO, Ms. DANNER, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. DELAY, Mr. DICKEY,

Mr. DOOLEY, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. FIELDS of Texas, Mr. GANSKE, Mr.

PETE GEREN of Texas, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. HALL of Texas,

Mr. HANCOCK, Mr. HAYES, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. LAUGHLIN,

Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. NEY, Mr. ORTIZ,

Mr. ORTON, Mr. PARKER, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. POSHARD,

Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ROSE, Mr. SCHAEFER, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. SMITH of

Michigan, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. TANNER, Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. THORNTON,

Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. VOLKMER, and Mr. ZELIFF) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To transfer management of the Tishomingo National Wildlife

Refuge in Oklahoma to the State of Oklahoma.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1112 IH1S

1 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT OF TISHOMINGO

2 NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.

3 (a) TRANSFER.—Within 30 days after the enactment

4 of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall transfer,

5 with the consent of the Governor of Oklahoma, the man6 agement of the lands and waters within the Tishomingo

7 National Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma to the State of

8 Oklahoma for administration by the Director of the Okla9 homa Department of Wildlife Conservation (or any succes10 sor agency). Such lands and waters shall be managed for

11 the same uses and in the same manner as they were man12 aged by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service prior

13 to calendar year 1994. Such lands and waters shall con14 tinue to be a national wildlife refuge, and the laws, rules,

15 and regulations applicable to the national wildlife refuge

16 system shall continue to be applicable to such lands and

17 waters on and after the effective date of such transfer.

18 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDING.—For each fiscal

19 year commencing after the enactment of this Act, there

20 is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the

21 Interior to make annual grants to the State of Oklahoma

22 for management of the lands and waters transferred under

23 subsection (a) an amount equal to 50 percent of the

24 amount made available to the Secretary of the Interior in

25 fiscal year 1994 for the management of such refuge.

Æ
H. R. 1031

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

For the relief of Oscar Salas-Velazquez.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR DISAPPROVAL OF REQUESTS

FOR CLASSIFICATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 204(c) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act, the Attorney General may not

disapprove a petition for classification of Oscar Salas-Velazquez

under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of such Act, or an application for adjustment of the status of Oscar Salas-Velazquez under section 245

of such Act, on any ground relating to a determination that the

marriage of Oscar Salas-Velazquez and Jennifer Christine Brady

was entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.

(b) WAIVER OF INADMISSIBILITY.—Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 212(a)(6) of the Immigration

and Nationality Act, Oscar Salas-Velazquez may not be considered

to be within a class of excludable aliens at any time on or after

the date of the enactment of this Act on any ground relating

to—

(1) a determination that the marriage of Oscar SalasVelazquez and Jennifer Christine Brady was entered into for

the purpose of evading the immigration laws; or

(2) the deportation of Oscar Salas-Velazquez on February

9, 1995.

(c) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION TREATMENT FOR

CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural parents, brothers, and sisters

of Oscar Salas-Velazquez shall not, by virtue of such relationship,

be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration

and Nationality Act.

(d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Oscar SalasVelazquez, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer

to reduce by 1, for the current or next following fiscal year, the
H. R. 1031—2

worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants under section

201(c)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### § 44.7262-1 Failure to pay special tax.

Any person liable for the special tax who does any act which makes him liable for such tax, without having paid the tax, is, besides being liable for the tax, subject to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1037

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include liability to pay

compensation under workmen’s compensation acts within the rules relating to certain personal liability assignments.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1995

Mr. JACOBS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include

liability to pay compensation under workmen’s compensation acts within the rules relating to certain personal

liability assignments.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1037 IH

1 SECTION 1. ASSIGNMENT OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

2 LIABILITY ELIGIBLE FOR EXCLUSION RELAT3 ING TO PERSONAL INJURY LIABILITY AS4 SIGNMENTS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 130 of

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain

7 personal injury liability assignments) is amended—

8 (1) by inserting ‘‘, or as compensation under

9 any workmen’s compensation act,’’ after ‘‘(whether

10 by suit or agreement)’’ in the material preceding

11 paragraph (1),

12 (2) by inserting ‘‘or the workmen’s compensa13 tion claim,’’ after ‘‘agreement,’’ in paragraph (1),

14 and

15 (3) by striking ‘‘section 104(a)(2)’’ in para16 graph (2)(D) and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1) or (2) of

17 section 104(a)’’.

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

19 subsection (a) shall apply to claims under workmen’s com20 pensation acts filed after the date of the enactment of this

21 Act.

Æ
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00114-CV

PATRICK LEE MULLINS,

Appellant

v.

THE HONORABLE MARK HOLT,

Appellee

From the Justice of the Peace Court

Precinct 3

Walker County, Texas

ORDER

Subsequent to the issuance of an opinion on May 9, 2013 in which we dismissed 

Patrick Lee Mullins’s appeal as frivolous, Mullins presented two motions for filing with 

the Court:

1. “Appellants Late Motion for Leave to File Affidavit of Indigence so as 

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal;” and

2. “Appellant’s First Verified Motion to Suspend Rule 9.5, Tex. R. App. 

Pro.”
Mullins v. Holt Page 2

We have processed Mullins’s appeal as if Mullins was pro se as was made quite 

clear in his initial filings. Further, Mullins’s appeal was processed on the limited 

number of copies we received.

Accordingly, Mullins’s belated motion for leave to proceed as a pauper is 

unnecessary; and we dismiss both the motion for leave to file and the motion to waive 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5 as moot.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motions dismissed

Order issued and filed May 23, 2013
#### KINGSLEY *v.*KENT CIRCUIT JUDGE.

Mandamus — Appeal and Error — Adequate Remedy — Capias ad Respondendum — Discharge.

Mandamus does not run for the purpose of vacating an order discharging a defendant taken upon a capias; the remedy by writ of error is adequate.

Petition by Mae L. Kingsley for a writ of mandamus to compel Willis B. Perkins, one of the Kent circuit judges, to vacate an order discharging one Mark B. Thompson from arrest on *capias ad respondendum.*

Submitted June 4, 1912.

(Calendar No. 25,104.)

Writ denied July 11, 1912.

*Earl W. Munshaw*and *Louis T. Herman,*for relator.

*Martin H. Oarmody,*for respondent.

*306Per Curiam.

This is an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to set aside an order made by him in a cause pending in the Kent circuit court upon the motion of one of the defendants therein, respondent thereby ordering and determining “that the said writ of *capias ad respondendum*and the order holding the said defendant Mark B. Thompson to bail indorsed thereon, and service thereof, be, and is hereby, dismissed as to said Mark B. Thompson,” and also the bail bond delivered for defendant’s appearance in said cause, and the special bail given was discharged and the sureties released.

It is contended on the part of the respondent that mandamus is not the proper remedy; that, the order being in effect a judgment, a complete and adequate remedy is open to plaintiff by writ of error. That this is the rule repeatedly held by this court is well settled. *Cattermole*v. *Ionia Circuit Judge,*136 Mich. 274 (99 N. W. 1), and cases cited. A careful study of the decision in this case is recommended. In no respect can the instant case be distinguished from it. The writ, the motion, and the order quashing the writ and the proceedings under it are identical. Relator has a complete and adequate remedy by writ of error.

The writ of mandamus is therefore denied.
40052.

#### CHAMBLESS v. CAIN et al.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

“No cause shall be carried to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals upon any bill of exceptions while the same is pending in the court below, unless the decision or judgment complained of, if it had been rendered as claimed by the plaintiff in error, would have been a final disposition of the cause or final as to some material party thereto.” *Code Ann.*§ 6-701. .

The plaintiff (plaintiff in error here) has excepted to the sus*739taining of the general demurrer filed by the defendant in the court below. Upon motion of defendant in error, this court has ordered the Clerk of the Meriwether County Superior Court to transmit a certified copy of the answer and cross-action filed by the defendant, Hollis E. Cain, to be filed as part of the record in this case. It appears from the record so transmitted that the defendant Cain filed an answer and cross-action praying for affirmative relief against the plaintiff. Thus, while the sustaining of the general demurrer filed by the defendant in the court below had the effect of dismissing the plaintiff’s petition, it did not at the same time carry with it the cross-action filed by the defendant. *Chemetron Corp. v. Southern Nitrogen Co.,*102 Ga. App. 577, 578 (117 SE2d 180). Accordingly, there being no final judgment in this case, the writ of error must be dismissed.

Decided May 8, 1963.

*George C. Kennedy,*for plaintiff in error.

*Ben R. Freeman, Zachary & Hunter, John C. Hunter,*contra.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.*
# C_2020252EN.01000101.xml

| 31.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/1

---

Mobility Package I on road transport – Declaration by the Commission

(2020/C 252/01)

The Commission takes note of the adoption of the social and market pillars of Mobility Package I by the Council and European Parliament on 15 July 2020 (1).

The social improvements in this proposal are significant. The Commission regrets however that the agreement reached by the Council and European Parliament includes elements that are not in line with the ambitions of the European Green Deal and the EUCO endorsement of the objective of achieving a climate-neutral EU by 2050. These are the compulsory return of the vehicle to the Member State of establishment every 8 weeks and the restrictions imposed on combined transport operations. These measures were not part of the Commission’s proposals adopted on 31 May 2017 and have not been the subject of an impact assessment. The obligation of return of the truck will lead to inefficiencies in the transport system and an increase in unnecessary emissions, pollution and congestion, while the restrictions on combined transport diminish its effectiveness to support multimodal freight operations.

The Commission will now closely assess the climate, environmental, and single market functioning impact of these two aspects. The Commission will do so in view of the Green Deal and measures to decarbonise transport and protect the environment, whilst ensuring a well-functioning Single Market.

After impact assessment, the Commission, if necessary, will exercise its right to come forward with a targeted legislative proposal before the two provisions enter into force.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs (OJ L 249, 31.7.2020, p. 1.)

Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector (OJ L 249, 31.7.2020, p. 17.).

Directive (EU) 2020/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the road transport sector and amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (OJ L 249, 31.7.2020, p. 49.).

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 110 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 276
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 110

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 8, 1995

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and 
                             Administration

                           December 14, 1995

               Reported by Mr. Warner, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for the appointment of Howard H. Baker, Jr. as a citizen 
     regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
Institution, in
the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the 
expiration of the term of Jeannine Smith Clark of the District of 
Columbia on August 25, 1995, is filled by the appointment of Howard H. 
Baker, Jr. of the District of Columbia. The appointment is for a term 
of six years and shall take effect on the date on which this joint 
resolution becomes law.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 7, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 276

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 110

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for the appointment of Howard H. Baker, Jr. as a citizen 
     regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 14, 1995

                       Reported without amendment
```