alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-4557-N-17

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

April 28, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Clifford Taffet, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration,*                     No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus                           ( print page 24976)                        Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: April 20, 2000.

Fred Karnas, Jr.,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs Assistance Programs.

[FR Doc. 00-10306  Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
Exhibit 21.1



LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                           |  |                                             
|------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------
|Subsidiary Name                            |  | Jurisdiction of Organization orIncorporation
|Corvis Netherlands Holding B.V.            |  | Netherlands                                 
|Corvis France R&D S.A.S.                   |  | France                                      
|Corvis U.S. Holdings, Inc.                 |  | Delaware                                    
|Corvis U.S. Operations, Inc.               |  | Delaware                                    
|CIII Communications, LLC.                  |  | Delaware                                    
|Broadwing Communications, LLC.             |  | Delaware                                    
|BCRES Inc.                                 |  | Delaware                                    
|Broadwing Communications IRV, LLC.         |  | Delaware                                    
|Broadwing Communications Asset, LLC.       |  | Delaware                                    
|Broadwing Communications Real Estate, LLC. |  | Delaware                                    
|Broadwing Communications Employees, Inc.   |  | Delaware                                    



1
### Andrew Langford, NOAA

February 2 5 , 2016

Las Vegas Ozone Study (LVOS)

(2 pages)

### Andrew	O.	Langford, NOAA	ESRL	Chemical	Sciences	Division,	Boulder,	CO

with	support	from	NASA	TOLNet	and	Clark	County,	NV	Dept.	of	Air	Quality ! NOAA	Ozone	lidar

at	Angel	Peak,	NV

May-June	2013

! Three	stratospheric

intrusions	in	10	days

! MDA8	O3	>70	ppbv	for

5	consecuTve	days

! High	ozone	at	both	high
(2.7	km)	and	low	(0.2

km)	elevaTons

## Deep	mixed	layers	in	the	IMW	can	entrain	stratospheric	intrusions

and	long-range	transport	layers	that	pass	over	the	Sierra	Nevada 

# High	USB	in	the	Intermountain	West	is	more

closely	related	to	PBL	depth	than	to	elevaTon

Andrew	O.	Langford, NOAA	ESRL	Chemical	Sciences	Division,	Boulder,	CO

with	support	from	NASA	TOLNet	and	Clark	County,	NV	Dept.	of	Air	Quality
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7540** 

JOHN H. GARVIN , Petitioner

– Appellant ,

v.
WILLIE EAGLETON , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. J. Michelle Childs , District Judge. ( 8:12

- cv - 01165

- JMC )

Submitted : October 22, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER , Ci rcuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
John H. Garvin, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John H. Garvin seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Garvin’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petitio n as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) (A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Rus sell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on July 24, 2013 . The notice of appeal was filed on August 25,
2013

. * Because Garvin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of t he appeal pe riod, we deny Garvin’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).3 materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3723 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3723

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 8135 Forest Lane in Dallas, Texas, as the ``Vaughn Gross Post Office 
                              Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 21, 2004

 Mr. Sessions introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 8135 Forest Lane in Dallas, Texas, as the ``Vaughn Gross Post Office 
                              Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. VAUGHN GROSS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 8135 Forest Lane in Dallas, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Vaughn Gross Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Vaughn Gross 
Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, a dopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United St ates Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2958

___________ John A. Carson, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner * Western District of Arkansas. of Social Security Administration, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 6, 2006 Filed: October 19, 2006

___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. John Carson appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. Following careful revie w, we conclude that substantial evidence in the record as a whole, including hearing testimony of a vocational expert, supported the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) fi nding that Carson, though unable to perform-2- his past relevant work as a hair stylist, was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act because he retainedthe residual functi onal capacity (RFC) to perform certain sedentary jobs which existed in significant numbers in the local and national ecomony. SeeDixon v. Barnhart , 353 F.3d 602, 604-05 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review; substantial evidence is evidence that reasonable person would find adequate to support decision); Goff v. Barnhart , 421 F.3d 785, 790, 794 (8th Cir. 2005) (if claimant cannot perform past work, Commissioner must prove claimant retains RFC to do other kinds of work ex isting in substantial numbers in national economy; vocational expert’s testim ony based on properly phrased hypothetical question constitutes substantial evidence). In addition, the ALJ offered valid reasons for discounting Carson’s subjective complaints of pain to the ex tent alleged, see Goff, 421 F.3d at 792 (this court will not disturb decision of ALJ who considers, but for good cause expressly discredits, claimant’s complaints of disabling pain), and for discounting physicians’ unsupported or incons istent opinions about Carson’s inability to work, see Prosch v. Apfel , 201 F.3d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir. 2000) (treating physician’s opinion, though normally entitled to great weight, does not automatically control and may be discounted or disr egarded where inconsistencies undermine credibility of such opinion).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,018,013
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  898,467
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,647
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,938,649
<PP&E>                                       3,024,927
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,290,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,673,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          929,036
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,744,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,673,336
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,974,872
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,442,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 239
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (467,270)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (467,270)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (467,270)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.76)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 708a.102 Authority to convert.

A credit union, with the approval of its members, may convert to a mutual savings bank or a savings association that is in mutual form without the prior approval of the NCUA, subject to applicable law governing mutual savings banks and savings associations and the other requirements of this part.

[71 FR 77167, Dec. 22, 2006. Redesignated at 75 FR 81386, Dec. 28, 2010]
```

[110th Congress Public Law 73]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ073.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 722]]

Public Law 110-73
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  103 South Getty Street in Uvalde, Texas, as the ``Dolph Briscoe, Jr. 
     Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Aug. 9, 2007 -  [H.R. 2688]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DOLPH BRISCOE, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 103 South Getty Street in Uvalde, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Dolph Briscoe, Jr. Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dolph 
Briscoe, Jr. Post Office Building''.

    Approved August 9, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2688 (S. 1596):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            July 30, considered and passed House.
            Aug. 3, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 24.1

                              SODAK GAMING, INC.

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature 
appears below hereby constitutes and appoints Michael G. Wordeman, Roland W.
Gentner, and David R. Johnson and each of them, his true and lawful attorney-in
fact and agents, each acting alone, with full powers of substitution and
resubstitution, for him in his name, a place and stead, in any and all
capacities to sign and the annual report on form 10-K of Sodak Gaming, Inc., and
any and all amendments thereto, and file the same, with all exhibits thereto and
other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agents, each acting alone,
full power and authority to do and perform to all intents and purposes as he
might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or the substitutes for such
attorneys-in-fact and agents may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                               Title                  Date
                                       ---------------------     ---------------
<S>                                    <C>                       <C> 
  /s/ Michael G. Wordeman                 Chairman, Chief
---------------------------
     Michael G. Wordeman               Executive Officer and     March 12, 1997
                                             Director

  /s/ Roland W. Gentner                  President, Chief
---------------------------
     Roland W. Gentner                 Operating Officer and     March 12, 1997
                                             Director

  /s/ David R. Johnson                    Chief Financial
---------------------------
   David R. Johnson                      Officer (principal      March 13, 1997
                                         financial officer)

  /s/ Clayton R. Trulson               Vice President, Finance 
---------------------------                                    
     Clayton R. Trulson                and Treasurer (principal  March 12, 1997
                                         accounting officer)    
                                                               

  /s/ Thomas Celani
---------------------------                   
     Thomas Celani                            Director           March 14, 1997


  /s/ Colin V. Reed
---------------------------                   
     Colin V. Reed                            Director           March 14, 1997


  /s/ Manuel Lujan, Jr. 
---------------------------                   
     Manuel Lujan, Jr.                        Director           March 14, 1997


  /s/ Ronnie Lopez      
---------------------------                   
     Ronnie Lopez                             Director           March 13, 1997
</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LESHANNON JEROME SHELLY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2022-0754

[May 9, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Indian River County; Robert Makemson, Judge; L.T. Case No.

312011CF001538A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### M’CLINTOCK AND WIFE *v.*CHAMBERLIN.

Error — female adults — indentures—wages of miuois.

A female before 1833, was not adult at eighteen years of age, for any other purpose than *to*enable Iter to contract matrimony, and to render her incapable of being bound by indenture of apprenticeship — the father had a right to her service, and to receive the wages if employed by another.

Wheie the charge of the court is erroneous, but die error is favorable to the plaintiff in error, the judgment will not be reversed.

A court of etror will only notice matters appearing on the record.

Error to the common pleas. The suit below was assumpsit for the labor of the wife while sole, and while she was between eighteen and twenty-one years old: on trial it appeared in evidence ihaL the labor was performed, and that plaintiff's wife had been bound by an indenture to the defendant, which expired in December, 1831. That a second indenture had been executed by her and her father, which recited that the first one, owing to a mistake of a year in her age, had made her time expire one year too soon, and binding her for another year.

The second indenture was objected to, because the girl being over eighteen when it was executed, was not bound by it, but the court admitted it, and charged the jury if they found that the plaintiff executed the second indenture, they must find for the defendant.

For error in admitting this evidence, and in the charge to the jury, this writ is brought.

*Strait*and *Hawes*for the plaintiff in error.

*Fox,*contra.

Lane, J.

The plaintiff’s wife, it is conceded, was under twenty-one years, when the labor, for which compensation was sought by the suit, was performed. Until the last session of the legislature, the age of majority for females as well as males in this state, was twenty-one, though they were exempt from service under indentures of apprenticeship, and had ability to contract matrimony. The law of last winter establishes eighteen as the age of majority for females for all purposes. That act has no influence on this case. But admitting what the plaintiff claims, that the second indenture was made when the girl was over eighteen, and inoperative as an indenture of apprenticeship; yet her father had a right to her services, and the contract was good for her wages, though not as an indenture of apprenticeship, to give the employer the authority and control of the person.

The charge of the court taken literally, may not materially affect the case. It was. of no consequence whether the girl executed the indenture or not — but the charge as given was more favorable to *548' the plaintiffs, than it would have been as we understand the law, and they cannot therefore complain.

The claim to give proof of the obtaining the second indenture by fraud or duress, we cannot consider because it is not in the bill of exceptions.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 CITY OF ARTESIA,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. NO. 33,477

5 RANDALL B. THOMAS,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY

8 Lisa B. Riley, District Judge

9 Viola Rhodes

10 Artesia, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Dick A. Blendan

13 Carlsbad, NM

14 for Appellant

15 MEMORANDUM OPINION

16 HANISEE, Judge.
2

1 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

3 been filed, and the time for doing so has expired.

4 {2} AFFIRMED.

5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 ____________________________________

7 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 ___________________________________

10 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

11 ___________________________________

12 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements of Post Properties, Inc. and Post Apartment Homes, L.P.
of our reports dated March 15, 2006 relating to the financial statements,
financial statement schedule, management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of Post Properties, Inc. and Post Apartment
Homes, L.P., which appears in this Form 10-K:

Form S-3 (No. 333-36595)
Form S-3 (No. 333-42884)
Form S-3 (No. 333-55994)
Form S-8 (No. 333-127580)




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
March 15, 2006