alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          97,319
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   79,435
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               183,604
<PP&E>                                       2,295,290
<DEPRECIATION>                                 135,493
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,042,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,760,655
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          397,000
<PREFERRED>                                    420,000
<COMMON>                                        47,414
<OTHER-SE>                                     897,737
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,042,945
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,551
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  331,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (262,262)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (262,262)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (262,262)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

CORRECTED JUDGMENT R ENDERED

AUGUST 28, 2013

NO. 03

- 10

- 00710

- CV

The University of Texas

- Pan American and The University of Texas System, Appellant s

v.

Howard Miller, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 53 RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND DISMISSED IN PART

--

OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s judgment

EXCEPT for the portion of the trial court’s denial of the plea to the jurisdiction as to Miller’s

hostile work en vironment claim : IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that

the portion of the trial court’s denial of the plea to the jurisdiction as to Miller’s hostile work

environment claim is reversed, and judgm ent is rend ered dismissing that claim for lack of

jurisdiction

. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects

. It is FURTHER ordered

that the parties each bear one

- half the costs relating to this appeal, both in this Co urt and the

court below; and that this decision be certified below for observance.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 3.41 Recording fees.

(a) All requests to record documents must be accompanied by the appropriate fee. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a fee is required for each application, patent and registration against which the document is recorded as identified in the cover sheet. The recording fee is set in § 1.21(h) of this chapter for patents and in § 2.6(b)(6) of this chapter for trademarks.

(b) No fee is required for each patent application and patent against which a document required by Executive Order 9424 is to be filed if:

(1) The document does not affect title and is so identified in the cover sheet (see § 3.31(c)(2)); and

(2) The document and cover sheet are either: Faxed or electronically submitted as prescribed by the Director, or mailed to the Office in compliance with § 3.27.

[63 FR 52159, Sept. 30, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 29879, May 26, 2004]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
115 STAT. 808 PUBLIC LAW 107–78—NOV. 28, 2001

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2924:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):

Oct. 23, considered and passed House.

Nov. 15, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–78

107th Congress

An Act

To provide authority to the Federal Power Marketing Administrations to reduce

vandalism and destruction of property, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROPERTY PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS.

The Administrators of the Western Area Power Administration,

the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Southeastern

Power Administration may each carry out programs to reduce vandalism, theft, and destruction of property that is under their jurisdiction.

SEC. 2. PROVISION OF REWARDS.

In carrying out a program under this Act, each Administrator

referred to in section 1 is authorized to provide rewards (including

cash rewards) to individuals who provide information or evidence

leading to the arrest and prosecution of individuals causing damage

to, or loss of, Federal property under their jurisdiction. The amount

of any one such reward paid to any individual may not exceed

a value of $1,000.

Approved November 28, 2001.

42 USC 7276e.

42 USC 7276d.

Nov. 28, 2001

[H.R. 2924]
#### § 65a.6 How will applications be evaluated?

The Director shall evaluate applications through the officers and employees, experts, consultants, or groups engaged by the Director for that purpose, including review by the National Advisory Environmental Health Sciences Council in accordance with peer review requirements set forth in part 52h of this chapter. The Director's first level of evaluation will be for technical merit and shall take into account, among other pertinent factors, the significance of the program, the qualifications and competency of the program director and proposed staff, the adequacy of the applicant's resources available for the program, and the amount of grant funds necessary for completion of its objectives. A second level of review will be conducted by the National Advisory Environmental Health Sciences Council.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PAUL JAMIL BOYD,

Petitioner

v.

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

LUZERNE COUNTY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 32 MM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of May, 2021, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – May 18, 2023

# 									Public Schedule – May 18, 2023							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

May 17, 2023

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken joins President Biden on travel to Japan.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE WENDY R. SHERMAN**

**10:00 a.m.** Deputy Secretary Sherman delivers remarks at a meeting of the Aerospace Industries Association Board of Governors in Washington, D.C.**(MEDIA DETERMINED BY HOST)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES RICHARD R. VERMA**

Deputy Secretary Verma is on travel to Poland, Moldova, and Romania from May 14-20, 2023.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS VICTORIA J. NULAND**

Under Secretary Nuland joins President Biden on travel to Japan.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENERGY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT JOSE W. FERNANDEZ**

Under Secretary Fernandez is on travel to Poland, Moldova, and Romania from May 14-20, 2023.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR ARMS CONTROL AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY BONNIE D. JENKINS**

Under Secretary Jenkins is on travel to the Netherlands from May 11-18, 2023.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONFLICT AND STABILIZATION OPERATIONS ANNE A. WITKOWSKY**

Assistant Secretary Witkowsky is on travel to Denmark and Germany from May 15-18, 2023.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS LEE SATTERFIELD**

Assistant Secretary Satterfield is on travel to Jordan from May 17-20, 2023.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS TODD D. ROBINSON**

Assistant Secretary Robinson is on travel to Poland, Moldova, and Romania from May 14-20, 2023.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFAIRS MICHELE SISON**

Assistant Secretary Sison is on travel to Switzerland and Italy from May 10-23, 2023.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL-MILITARY AFFAIRS JESSICA LEWIS**

Assistant Secretary Lewis is on travel to Poland, Moldova, and Romania from May 14-20, 2023.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION JULIETA VALLS NOYES**

Assistant Secretary Noyes is on travel to Switzerland and Mexico from May 12-19, 2023.

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

**1:15 p.m.** Department Press Briefing with Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel.**(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)***The Department Press Briefing will be streamed live on the Department homepage and YouTube Channel.*

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonSecretary TripThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### HINKLEY *v.*WABASH RAILWAY CO.

ON REHEARING.

Former opinion affirmed May 8, 1911.

Moore, J.

A decision was rendered in this case in September last. The opinion is found in 162 Mich. 546 (127 N. W. 668). Later a reargument was ordered. We have again considered the ease, and still think the judgment should be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion to which reference has been made.

Judgment is affirmed.

Ostrander, O. J., and Hooker, McAlvay, Brooke, Blair, and Stone, JJ., concurred.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 41.12 Citation of authority.

(a) For any United States Supreme Court decision, citation to the United States Reports is preferred.

(b) For any decision other than a United States Supreme Court decision, citation to the West Reporter System is preferred.

(c) Citations to authority must include pinpoint citations whenever a specific holding or portion of an authority is invoked.

(d) Non-binding authority should be used sparingly. If the authority is not an authority of the Office and is not reproduced in the United States Reports or the West Reporter System, a copy of the authority should be provided.

[76 FR 72296, Nov. 22, 2011]
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2

                            OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Transition Report of OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
L. Van Nostrand, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Date: February 9, 2005          /s/ Robert L. Van Nostrand
                                -----------------------------------------------
                                Robert L. Van Nostrand
                                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

                                       41
#### § 435.606 [Reserved]
§ 600.115 Development and submission of the BHP Blueprint. ( a ) *State authority to submit the State Blueprint.* A State BHP Blueprint must be signed by the State's Governor or by the official with delegated authority from the Governor to sign it. A State may choose to submit its BHP Blueprint in two parts: The first limited submission to secure interim certification and the second full submission to secure full certification.
( b ) *State Basic Health Program officials.* The State must identify in the BHP Blueprint the agency and officials within that agency, by position or title, who are responsible for program administration, operations, and financial oversight.
( c ) *Opportunity for public comment.* The State must provide an opportunity for public comment on the BHP Blueprint content described in § 600.110 before submission to the Secretary for certification. ( 1 ) The State must seek public comment on any significant subsequent revisions prior to submission of those revisions to the Secretary for certification. Significant revisions are those that alter core program operations required by § 600.145(f), as well as changes that alter the BHP standard health plan benefit package, or enrollment, disenrollment and verification policies.
( 2 ) The process of seeking public comment must include Federally recognized tribes as defined in the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a, located in the State.
( d ) *Submission and timing.* The BHP Blueprint must be submitted in a manner and format specified by HHS. States may not implement the BHP prior to receiving full certification. The date of implementation for this purpose is the first day enrollees would receive coverage under the BHP. Following the 2015 initial implementation year, a state implementing a BHP must coordinate implementation with open enrollment of the state's exchange.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. ER06-615-000; ER07-1257-000; ER08-1113-000]

                    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that on the following dates members of its staff will participate in teleconferences to be conducted by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The agenda and other documents for the teleconferences are available on the CAISO's Web site,                     *http://www.caiso.com.*

January 30, 2009—Teleconference on MRTU Pricing Review

February 2, 2009—Teleconference on MRTU Systems Testing

February 3, 2009—Teleconference on MRTU Parallel Operations

February 10, 2009—Teleconference on MRTU Parallel Operations

Sponsored by the CAISO, the teleconferences are open to all market participants, and Commission staff's attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The teleconferences may discuss matters at issue in the above captioned dockets.

                    For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at                     *saeed.farrokhpay@ferc.gov*; (916) 294-0233 or Maury                     *Kruth at maury.kruth@ferc.gov*, (916) 294-0275.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-2286 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Max Wester, as Executor, Etc., of Laura A. Schicht, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*The Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association, Appellant.

- Appeal from an. order of the Special Term denying a motion to compel a reply to alleged new matter constituting defense by way of avoidance.

G-. Burnham, Jr. (William T. B. Milliken, of counsel), for appellant.

Alfred and Charles Steckler (Levin B. Brown, of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order of the Special Term of this court, entered on March 15, 1899, denying defendant’s motion to compel a reply to the alleged new matter constituting defense by way of avoidance contained in defendant’s answer herein, ■ embraced in paragraphs II, III, IV, V, VIII, and XIV of such answer.

The answer is lengthy and somewhat involved, but the sections referred to pleaded new matter by way of avoidance, and the authorities are too numerous to require separate mention, that in cases of this character a reply should be ordered.

Order appealed from reversed and a motion to compel reply granted.

Present: O’Dwyer and McCarthy, JJ.

Order reversed and motion granted.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6480
JOHN WAYNE LUNSFORD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden of FCI-Edgefield; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (9:06-cv-02395-JFA) Submitted: September 26, 2007 Decided: October 4, 2007 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Wayne Lunsford, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: John Wayne Lunsford seeks to challenge on appeal the authority of a United States magistrate judge to conduct a motion hearing. The underlying case in which the hearing was scheduled remains pending in the district court. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The proceeding Lunsford seeks to challenge reflects neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Lunsford’s motion for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 441.58 Periodicity schedule. The agency must implement a periodicity schedule for screening services that— ( a ) Meets reasonable standards of medical and dental practice determined by the agency after consultation with recognized medical and dental organizations involved in child health care;
( b ) Specifies screening services applicable at each stage of the beneficiary's life, beginning with a neonatal examination, up to the age at which an individual is no longer eligible for EPSDT services; and
( c ) At the agency's option, provides for needed screening services as determined by the agency, in addition to the otherwise applicable screening services specified under paragraph (b) of this section.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7055

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RICKY LEE COPELAND,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:10-cr-00035-REP-1)

Submitted: January 13, 2014 Decided: January 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Lee Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Lee Copeland appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, 

renewed motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Copeland, No. 3:10-cr-00035-REP-1 (E.D. Va. June 20, 2013); see 

also United States v. Black, 737 F.3d 280, 287 (4th Cir. 2013) 

(holding that § 3582(c)(2) does not provide means to apply Fair 

Sentencing Act (“FSA”) minimums to defendants sentenced before

FSA’s effective date); United States v. Blewett, __ F.3d __, 

2013 WL 6231727, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2013) (en banc) (Nos. 

12-5226, 12-5582) (vacating panel opinion and holding that 

“(1) the Fair Sentencing Act’s new mandatory minimums do not 

apply to defendants sentenced before it took effect; 

(2) § 3582(c)(2) does not provide a vehicle for circumventing 

that interpretation; and (3) the Constitution does not provide a 

basis for blocking it”). We further deny Copeland’s request for 

appointment of counsel. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED