alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<7ESUs Court of CAt mik/vl appeals octobcr tg, ooi5

Honorable 1\&k a*d ^useces w.iiaMK. Wekk, A^a^t

P. 0, Box (23og, CAfrroL StatioM T^'uP,*0'VIZ£Z-,t

Aus-nKhXfexAs 78111 R^ea/^x'Hoo

RE' Willed K, We4)i) VS. THt ST7VTE d>F T^X/V5

Harris £oun4y, TeX<u - dAUSE KlO, nlS\0(,i

'r CR'—Ap— *>• RECEIVED IN

beW -Hus tWiLble &,*+. XW been ftJ3POT|^^reHtmc^>te Ji^e Homely Hb\l ef-B>e IllUt £>is+r^ &>wc\ -Pnrf*

Ujlrvido rwy CcfWl^sH** o^cvurtA^ He -Pdu/vJ /V\y5e4-F mcL^enV be*©**-,

dujrvn^ fiL^v4 a-f-Ver 4no4, a^J 4oir purpose &f afpeaJ-, M.y i*d^c*tt.y

Ortijctu^ Fy&s tte>4- cha*ide Si^ce {ncedccejfoJrloh \v\ fVie Vt>.C3^X.D -

„x_ u<u\fe a4\ le^^J iMj>exd"ii\*e*rb +d <£r\y CouH- u>i'B* JuttscIic^tov

-te> \feri-ry *\y Gci^-W oac| Su?or^ sfeferview-f/^o^ X a*vi iVtiijeKt,

* "TXls (e*W i5 a rexju£%+ -fcr a^oopy of +fce le#a$ (W+ of

(l*W»va4 A-ppe^Js OPlAflDfJ ark* ORDERS -froTM A*y 3>in^ AppeaJ by way o-E-fae Appalan^ "D»SG*rn&AW fi€VieW +M- U)&$

£»led aWl decided <x.f+er 06-61 - i2- - Woul4 you please Send

^^d pn?v*K*e ivte a copy vJketfT XU&Je no <^>py erfSatdi OPi^tOfX

SmeereW

M/,wlc8 WfUanl K.\AleM>,*l7l3IZo
#### § 162.1 General.

Geographic coordinates expressed in terms of latitude or longitude, or both, are not intended for plotting on maps or charts whose referenced horizontal datum is the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83), unless such geographic coordinates are expressly labeled NAD 83. Geographic coordinates without the NAD 83 reference may be plotted on maps or charts referenced to NAD 83 only after application of the appropriate corrections that are published on the particular map or chart being used.

[CGD 86-082, 52 FR 33811, Sept. 8, 1987]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36166-36167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14310]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


Privacy Act of 1974; Deletion of Privacy Act System of Records

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete and existing system of records.

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

SUMMARY: The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) publishes this 
document pursuant to the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 at 5 
U.S.C. 552a to inform the public that it will no longer maintain 
records in the system formerly known as MSPB/Internal-4 by the name or 
personal identifier of the record subject. Names and personal 
identifiers will be deleted for all existing and future documents 
maintained in the OAC Decision Data Base.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2000.

ADDRESS: Office of the Clerk of the Board, U.S. Merit Systems 
Protection Board, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20419.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael H. Hoxie, (202) 653-7200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By Federal Register Notice of July 2, 1996 
(61 FR 34448) the Board announced a new system of records, Office of 
Appeals Counsel Decision Data Base, MSPB/Internal-4. The categories of 
records to be maintained in the system included advisory memoranda 
prepared by the Office of Appeals Counsel for the Board of individual 
members of the Board and instructions from members of the Board 
regarding the preparation of decisions for Board issuance. These 
records were to contain individual appellant's names, and could also 
contain social security numbers, home addresses, veterans status, race, 
sex, national origin and disability status data.
    The Board hereby announces its intention to delete all names and 
personal identifiers from the records now maintained in this data base, 
and from any future records placed in the data base. Henceforth, the 
records in this data base will be retrieved by legal or factual issues. 
No personal information associated with any individual will be 
maintained.


[[Page 36167]]


    Dated: June 1, 2000.
Robert E. Taylor,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-14310 Filed 6-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400-01-M
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00168-CV

In re Abenat Abera

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining that the trial court 

violated her Due Process rights by failing to provide her an opportunity to be heard before 

entering new temporary orders. Having reviewed the petition and the record before us, relator 

first raised her Due Process argument in a motion to vacate, which has not yet been ruled on 

by the trial court. See In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding)

(per curiam) (“A party's right to mandamus relief generally requires a predicate request for some 

action and a refusal of that request.”).

Accordingly, this petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 

52.8(a). Relator’s Motion for Emergency Hearing and Motion to Stay Temporary Orders are 

also denied.
__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Kelly

Filed: May 14, 2021
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22563-22564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09281]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Royalty Board

[Docket No. 15-0008-CRB-SATR (2015-19)]

Determination of Royalty Rates for Secondary Transmissions of 
Broadcasts by Satellite Carriers and Distributors: Withdrawal

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Notice of commencement of proceeding and solicitation of 
petitions to participate; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The announcement of the commencement of a proceeding published 
on March 30, 2015, 80 FR 16702 is withdrawn.

DATES: Effective Date: The commencement announcement published on March 
30, 2015, is withdrawn April 22, 2015.

ADDRESSES: This notice is also posted on the agency's Web site 
(www.loc.gov/crb).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Whittle, Attorney Advisor, by 
telephone at (202) 707-7658 or email at crb@loc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Copyright Royalty Judges have decided to 
withdraw the commencement of a proceeding based on a reconsideration of 
the congressional intent behind the enactment of the STELA 
Reauthorization Act of 2014 Public Law

[[Page 22564]]

113-200. The provisions of the reauthorization act extend the satellite 
carrier statutory license under section 119 of the Copyright Act (Act) 
to December 31, 2019. See 17 U.S.C. 119(h). Despite some conflicting 
statutory language in the new law, the Judges conclude that the rates 
in effect on December 31, 2014, which were established by a voluntary 
agreement among certain satellite carriers and copyright owners and 
which are codified at 37 CFR 386.2(b), continue in effect, subject only 
to the annual royalty fee adjustment provision found at 17 U.S.C. 
119(c)(2). See section 119 (c)(1)(E) of the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. 
119(c)(1)(e) (2014).\1\ A proceeding to determine rates for the 
statutory license is not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a subsequent notice, the Judges will announce the 
adjusted satellite rate for 2015.

    Dated: April 16, 2015.
Suzanne M. Barnett,
Chief Copyright Royalty Judges.
[FR Doc. 2015-09281 Filed 4-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-72-P
```
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION UNDERSECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, Raymond Eshaghian, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of TMSF Holdings, Inc.,certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 of TMSF Holdings,Inc. 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this quarterly report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a 15(e)and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have: 

     a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

     b. designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statementsfor external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
     c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): 

     a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation ; and 

     b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

/s/ Raymond Eshaghian   Raymond Eshaghian Chief Executive Officer March 30, 2004
3274 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Open Meeting of Citizen Advocacy

Panel, Brooklyn District

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the

Brooklyn District Citizen Advocacy

Panel will be held in Brooklyn, New

York.

DATES: The meeting will be held Friday

January 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eileen Cain at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–

488–3555.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is

hereby given pursuant to Section

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988)

that an operational meeting of the

Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held

Friday, January 28, 2000, 6:00 p.m. to

9:00 p.m. at the Internal Revenue

Service Brooklyn Building located at

625 Fulton Street, NY 11201. For more

information or to confirm attendance,

notification of intent to attend the

meeting must be made with Eileen Cain.

Mrs. Cain can be reached at 1–888–912–

1227 or 718–488–3555. The public is

invited to make oral comments from

6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Friday,

January 28, 2000.

Individual comments will be limited

to 5 minutes. If you would like to have

the CAP consider a written statement,

please call 1–888–912–1227 or 718–

488–3555, or write Eileen Cain, CAP

Office, P.O. Box R, Brooklyn, NY,

11201. The Agenda will include the

following: various IRS issues. Note: Last

minute changes to the agenda are

possible and could prevent effective

advance notice.

Dated: January 7, 2000.

Cathy VanHorn,

Chief, CAP & Communications.

[FR Doc. 00–1389 Filed 1–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLIING CODE 4830 –01–P
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 25210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10607]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

Notice of Meeting

    The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled 
for 20 May 2010, at 10 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National 
Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, 
parks and memorials.
    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission 
are available on our Web site: Inquiries regarding the agenda and 
requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to 
Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above 
address; by e-mailing staff@cfa.gov; or by calling 202-504-2200. 
Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing 
impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the 
meeting date.

    Dated: April 29, 2010 in Washington, DC.
Thomas Luebke, AIA,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10607 Filed 5-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for the three months ended September 30, 1999
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         907,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               40,802,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   404,000
<INVENTORY>                                 33,327,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            82,992,000
<PP&E>                                      86,328,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              35,546,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             164,727,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       29,879,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,865,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 104,174,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               164,727,000
<SALES>                                     42,072,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,072,000
<CGS>                                       26,933,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               36,693,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             612,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,505,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,575,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,930,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,930,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6659

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus MARION PROMISE, a/k/a Mario, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-7-MU) Submitted: August 9, 2004 Decided: October 28, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion Promise, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Nina Swift Goodman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Marion Promise, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to file a belated appeal from the court’s denial of his motion to extend the one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 6 (2000), and the order denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Promise has not made the requisite showing. Although we find that the district court’s reliance on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure applicable to criminal cases is debatable or wrong, see United States v. Hayman , 342 U.S. 205, 209 n.4 (1952) (“Appeals from orders denying motions under Section 2255 are governed by the civil rules applicable to appeals from final- 3 - judgments in habeas corpus actions.”), Promise has failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### § 162.195 Santa Monica Bay, Calif.; restricted area.

(a) *The area.* The waters of the Pacific Ocean, Santa Monica Bay, in an area extending seaward from the shoreline a distance of about 5 nautical miles (normal to the shoreline) and basically outlined as follows:

| Station | Latitude North | Longitude West |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A | 33°54′59′′ | 118°25′41′′ |
| B | 33°54′59′′ | 118°28′00′′ |
| C | 33°53′59.5′′ | 118°31′37′′ |
| D | 33°56′19.5′′ | 118°34′05′′ |
| E | 33°56′25′′ | 118°26′29′′ |

(b) *The regulations.*

(1) Vessels shall not anchor within the area at any time without permission.

(2) Dredging, dragging, seining, or other fishing operations which might foul underwater installations within the area are prohibited.

(3) All vessels entering the area, other than vessels operated by or for the United States, the State of California, the county of Los Angeles, or the city of Los Angeles, shall proceed across the area by the most direct route and without unnecessary delay. The area will be open and unrestricted to small recreational craft for recreational activities at all times.

(4) The placing of bouys, markers, or other devices requiring anchors will not be permitted.

(5) The city of Los Angeles will maintain a patrol of the area as needed.
#### Bernard D. Bartels et al. v. George W. Milleson.

Filed April 17, 1894.

No. 5080.

Beview: Evidence. This case presents questions of fact only, and the evidence *held*sufficient to sustain the judgment of the district court.

Error from the district court of Kearney county. Tried below before Gaslin, J.

*119*Godfrey & Godfrey,*for plaintiffs in error.

*St. Clair & MePheely, contra.*

Post, J.

This was an action by the defendant in error, plaintiff below, against the plaintiffs in error for injury to live stock by dogs of the latter. A trial before the district court of Kearney county resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff therein, which we are asked to review in this proceeding. A reversal of the judgment of the district court is sought on account of numerous alleged errors, but from an inspection of the motion for a new trial we discover that the only ground therein assigned is that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence. The only claim which can be made for the evidence of the plaintiffs in error is that it is contradictory of that offered by the successful party. It is possible that a finding of no cause of action would have been sustained on the evidence in the record; but this court will not retry questions of fact on a petition in error for the purpose of determining whether the verdict or finding is in accordance with the weight of the evidence. The judgment is

Affirmed.
Comagine Health

Chronic Disease Self-Management Education Program Grantee

1 of 2

Prevention and Public Health Fund 2020, effective August 1, 2020

Goals, Strategies, and Activities

The overall purposes of this 3-year grant are to:

• Goal 1: Strengthen integrated state,

regional, or tribal networks that address

the social and behavioral determinants of

health of older adults and adults with

disabilities.

• Goal 2: Significantly increase the number

of older adults and adults with disabilities

who participate in chronic disease selfmanagement education and selfmanagement support programs.

Comagine Health and its partners will: 

• Develop and implement a comprehensive

statewide plan for the Community

Integrated Network of Oregon (CINO)

• Streamline referral workflows and

processes to increase provider referrals

and participant enrollment

• Establish relationships and billing

infrastructure between the program

delivery hub and health plans to increase

program sustainability

Proposed Interventions

• Chronic Disease Self-Management

Program (CDSMP)

• Diabetes Self-Management Program

(DSMP)

• Programa de Manejo Personal de la

Diabetes (Spanish DSMP)

• Tomando Control de su Salud (Spanish

CDSMP)

• Walk With Ease (WWE)

Partnerships

To achieve the goals of the grant, Comagine 

Health will collaborate with the following key 

partners:

• Connect Oregon Community Information

Exchange (CIE)

• Familias en Acción

• Freedmen’s Health

• Oregon Health Authority (OHA)

• Oregon Office on Disability and Health

(OODH)

• Oregon State University Extension Service

(OSU Extension)

• Oregon Wellness Network (OWN),

Oregon Association of Area Agencies on

Aging (O4AD)

• Welld Health
2 of 2

Prevention and Public Health Fund 2020, effective August 1, 2020

Anticipated Results

Comagine Health and its partners propose to 

achieve the following results: 

• Engage 1,600 participants in SMRC 

programs and 1,400 participants in WWE 

programs

• Achieve program access in 65% of Oregon 

counties by April, 2023, and 100% of 

counties by April 2024

• Increase program enrollment from 

provider referrals to 30%

• Successfully submit 75% of eligible 

services for reimbursement.

Contact:

Tracy Carver

Comagine Health

tcarver@comagine.org

For more information: 

Administration for Community Living 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Washington, DC 20201

http://www.acl.gov