alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 186 (Monday, September 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49402-49403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23353]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Notice of a Change in Status of an Extended Benefit (EB) Period 
for Alabama.

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility 
under the EB program for Alabama.
    The following change has occurred since the publication of the last 
notice regarding Alabama's EB status:
    <bullet> Alabama has enacted a retroactive TUR trigger for their EB 
program. Alabama would have triggered on with the release of state 
total unemployment rates (TURs) for January 2009, released by the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics on March 11, 2009. This means their current 
EB period began March 29, 2009. In addition, the three month average 
seasonally adjusted TUR rose above the 8.0 percent threshold for a High 
Unemployment Period (HUP) with the release of March TURs on April 17, 
2009. As a result, a HUP in the EB program began in Alabama on May 3. 
Eligible claimants will be able to receive up to 20 weeks of additional 
benefits.

[[Page 49403]]

Information for Claimants

    The duration of benefits payable in the EB Program, and the terms 
and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and 
the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department 
of Labor. In the case of a state beginning a HUP period, the State 
Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement 
to each individual who may be eligible for increased benefits due to 
the HUP (20 CFR 615.13 (c) (1)).
    Persons who wish to inquire about their rights under the program 
should contact their State Workforce Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce 
Security, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Frances Perkins Bldg. Room S-
4231, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-3008 (this is 
not a toll-free number) or by e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e49474c4c41405d005d4d415a5a6e4a414200494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="11767873737e7f623f62727e656551757e7d3f767e67">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of September, 2009.
Jane Oates,
Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-23353 Filed 9-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Editorial Note on Part 1102
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 83 FR 43739, Aug. 28, 2018.

§ 1102.402 Establishing the annual AMC registry fee. The annual AMC registry fee to be applied by States that elect to register and supervise AMCs is established as follows: ( a ) In the case of an AMC that has been in existence for more than a year, $25 multiplied by the number of appraisers who have performed an appraisal for the AMC in connection with a covered transaction in such State during the previous year; and
( b ) In the case of an AMC that has not been in existence for more than a year, $25 multiplied by the number of appraisers who have performed an appraisal for the AMC in connection with a covered transaction in such State since the AMC commenced doing business.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                          411,000
<SECURITIES>                    000
<RECEIVABLES>                   2,983,000
<ALLOWANCES>                    000
<INVENTORY>                     000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                3,394,000
<PP&E>                          000
<DEPRECIATION>                  000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  3,606,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           186,000
<BONDS>                         000
<COMMON>                        000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           000
<PREFERRED>                     000
<OTHER-SE>                      3,420,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    3,606,000
<SALES>                         000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                742,000
<CGS>                           000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                275,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 467,000
<INCOME-TAX>                    000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             467,000
<DISCONTINUED>                  000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 000
<CHANGES>                       000
<NET-INCOME>                    467,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   7.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                   000
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 186 (Monday, September 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 49403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23355]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Notice of a Change in Status of an Extended Benefit (EB) Period 
for West Virginia.

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility 
under the EB program for West Virginia.
    The following change has occurred since the publication of the last 
notice regarding West Virginia's EB status:
    <bullet> West Virginia has enacted a retroactive TUR trigger for 
their EB program. West Virginia would have triggered on with the 
release of state total unemployment rates (TURs) for April 2009, 
released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on May 22, 2009. This means 
their current EB period began June 7, 2009. In addition, the three 
month average seasonally adjusted TUR rose above the 8.0 percent 
threshold for a High Unemployment Period (HUP) with the release of June 
TURs on July 17, 2009. As a result, a HUP in the EB program began in 
West Virginia on August 2. Eligible claimants will be able to receive 
up to 20 weeks of additional benefits.

Information for Claimants

    The duration of benefits payable in the EB Program, and the terms 
and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and 
the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department 
of Labor. In the case of a state beginning a HUP period, the State 
Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement 
to each individual who may be eligible for increased benefits due to 
the HUP (20 CFR 615.13 (c) (1)).
    Persons who wish to inquire about their rights under the program 
should contact their State Workforce Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce 
Security, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Frances Perkins Bldg. Room S-
4231, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-3008 (this is 
not a toll-free number) or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a1d131818151409540919150e0e3a1e1516541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c4b454e4e43425f025f4f4358586c484340024b435a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of September, 2009.
Jane Oates,
Assistant Secretary,
    Employment and Training Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-23355 Filed 9-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order entered December 30 , 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01571

- CV

IN RE TARRANT COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY, Relator

O riginal Proceeding f

rom Tarrant County, Texas 1



### O RDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this original proceeding.

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE

1 The Second Court of Appeals certified this original proceeding to this Court stating they were unable to assemble

a panel t o take immediate action in this original proceeding because members of the court are recused. See T EX . R.

A PP . P. 17.2.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 21, 2011 

t1114 

Order 

 

November 21, 2011 

143513 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143513 

 COA: 303579 

Oakland CC: 2009-227588-FC 

VALENTINO DEVINE BENNETT, 2009-227589-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 2009-227553-FC 

 2009-227554-FC 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 8, 2011 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 4.87a Schedule of ratings—other sense organs.

| | Rating |
| --- | --- |
| 6275 Sense of smell, complete loss | 10 |
| 6276 Sense of taste, complete loss | 10 |
| **Note:** Evaluation will be assigned under diagnostic codes 6275 or 6276 only if there is an anatomical or pathological basis for the condition. | |

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)

[64 FR 25210, May 11, 1999]
42125.

#### SMITH v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Jordan, Judge.

The State Board of Workmen’s Compensation after a change in condition hearing on application of the employer entered an award reducing the claimant’s compensation from $30 per week based on total incapacity under *Code Ann.*§ 114-404 to $20 per week based on partial incapacity under *Code Ann.*§ 114-405 (the maximum amount allow*756able under the provisions of the law in effect at the time of the claimant’s injury). This award was affirmed by the superior court and the appeal is from that judgment. *Held:*

Submitted July 7, 1966

Decided November 3, 1966

Rehearing denied December 7, 1966

*Wade H. Leonard,*for appellant.

*Albert L. Hodge,*for appellees.

1. This court has jurisdiction of this appeal under the ruling in *Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N. Y. v. Whitehead,*114 Ga. App. 630.

2. The award of the board was supported by the evidence which authorized a finding that the claimant had reached maximum physical improvement and was fully capable of performing light work and that he was in fact doing about one third of the work at a small business operated by his wife which netted approximately $55 per week as income for the claimant’s family. Since the claimant was awarded the maximum amount of compensation allowable under the applicable statute for partial incapacity, he could not have been harmed by the board’s method of computation of his present income, and the award being supported by competent evidence was not subject to reversal on this ground or for any other reason urged by the claimant. *Allstate Ins. Co. v. Starnes,*95 Ga. App. 274, 277 (97 SE2d 624). The superior court did not err therefore in affirming the award.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
* 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

April 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41320

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LUIS MORALES-SALAZAR, also

known as Antonio Garcia-Diaz,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CR-49-1

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender representing Jose Luis MoralesSalazar (Morales) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Morales was sent a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but has

not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and

the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,
No. 02-41320

-2-

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000302 07-OCT-2015 11:19 AM
# EXHIBIT 32.1

# Certification Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) by FCCC, Inc. (the
Registrant), I, Bernard Zimmerman, President, Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

|1. |  | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. |  | The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of
Registrant.
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 
| | 
| | 

| | Name: Bernard Zimmerman                     
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: November 7, 2008

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

#### § 36.4329 Hazard insurance.

The holder shall require insurance policies to be procured and maintained in an amount sufficient to protect the security against the risks or hazards to which it may be subjected to the extent customary in the locality. All moneys received under such policies covering payment of insured losses shall be applied to restoration of the security or to the loan balance. Flood insurance will be required on any building or personal property securing a loan at any time during the term of the loan that such security is located in an area identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as having special flood hazards and in which flood insurance has been made available under the National Flood Insurance Act, as amended. The amount of flood insurance must be at least equal to the lesser of the outstanding principal balance of the loan or the maximum limit of coverage available for the particular type of property under the National Flood Insurance Act, as amended. The Secretary cannot guarantee a loan for the acquisition or construction of property located in an area identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as having special flood hazards unless the community in which such area is situated is then participating in the National Flood Insurance Program.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3703(c)(1), 42 U.S.C. 4106(a))
42293.

#### POPPELL v. THE STATE.

Submitted September 12, 1966

Decided September 20, 1966.

*Richard D. Phillips,*for appellant.

*W. N. Little, Solicitor,*for appellee.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was tried and convicted for possessing and transporting nontax-paid liquor. On May 11, 1966, the defendant was released from further custody upon payment of fines imposed by the court. *Held:*

“This having become merely a moot case, by reason of the payment of the fine imposed upon the accused and his discharge from custody, the writ of error must be dismissed.” *Blakey v.*State, 31 Ga. App. 157 (120 SE 16).

*Appeal dismissed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
116 STAT. 130 PUBLIC LAW 107–167—APR. 18, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3379:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 147 (2001): Dec. 18, considered and passed House.

Vol. 148 (2002): Mar. 22, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–167

107th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 375 Carlls

Path in Deer Park, New York, as the ‘‘Raymond M. Downey Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

375 Carlls Path in Deer Park, New York, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘Raymond M. Downey Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Raymond

M. Downey Post Office Building’’.

Approved April 18, 2002.

Apr. 18, 2002

[H.R. 3379]
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Candela Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, F.Paul Broyer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

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

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

 
| Date:  | February 5, 2007        |   | /s/ F. Paul Broyer |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------------------|--------|
|   | F. Paul Broyer          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DANIEL LOPEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50538

D.C . No. 2:07-c r-00856-R GK M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2014 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd B YB EE , C i rc uit C ourt Judge s. Danie l Lope z a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c h a lle nge s the 24-m onth se nte nc e im

pose d upon re voc ation of supervise d re le a se . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . Lope z c o nte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by fa iling to c a lc ulate the



# FIL ED D EC 16 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a dvisory

Se nte nc ing Guide line s range on the re c o rd. W e re v ie w for pla in e rror. Se eUnite d State

s v . Vale nc ia-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th C ir. 2010). Although there is no dispute tha t the e rror in this c a se wa s pla in, re m and is not warrante d be c a

use on this re c ord Lope z c annot e sta blish a re a sona ble proba bility that he would ha

ve re c e ive d a

diffe re nt se nte nc e in the a bse nc e of the e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Dallman , 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th C i r. 2008). Lope z a l so c o nte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d proc e dura l ly by fa iling to e xpla in its sente n c e a de quate ly , a nd to c onside r his a

rgum e nts in mitiga

tion. B e c a use Lope z pre se rve d this c ha lle n ge , we re vie w de novo. Se eUnite d State s v . De lgado , 357 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th C ir. 2004). There c o rd re fle c ts tha t the c ourt c onside re d Lope z ’ s a

rgum e nts for a

n 8-m onth se nte n c e , a

nd the c ourt’ s e xpla nation of its a

bove -Guide line s se nte n c e wa s a de quate . Se eUnite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ). Lope z fina lly

c onte nds tha

t his a b o ve -Guide line s se nte nc e is substa ntive ly unre a s ona

ble . W e re v i e w for a

buse of disc re tion. Se eGall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The

24-m onth sta

t utory m a xim um se nte n c e is substa

ntive ly re a s ona ble in light of the

18 U.S.C . § 3583(e ) se nte nc ing fa c tors a nd the tota lity

of the c irc um s ta

nc e s, inc luding Lope z ’ s history of a bsc o nding from supe rvision. Se e id . AFFIRM E D. 1 3 - 5 0 5 3 8 2
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00234

- CV

L

ANCE H OWERTON , Appellant

V

.

A MERICAN P RECISION A MMUNITION , LLC, A / K / A P RECISION A MMUNITION
AND M ATTHEW C AMPBELL , Appell e e s §

§
§
§ On Appeal from the 415th District Court

of Parker County ( CV

- 21

- 0594 )
April 13, 2023
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the tr i al court’s orde r . It is ordered that the order of the trial court is

reversed

. W e render judgment dismissing the fraud and DTPA claims against Lance

Howerton and dismi ssing the defamation claims based on his actions as a city

emplo yee and remand the case to the trial court

.

It is further ordered that Appellees American Precision Ammunition, LLC,

a/ k / a Precision Ammunition and Matthew Campbell shall pay all costs of this appeal,

for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell Justice Wade Birdwell