alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 122 (Friday, June 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39222-39223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15969]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33879 (Sub-No. 1)]


Union Pacific Railroad Company--Trackage Rights Exemption--The 
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of Exemption.

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

SUMMARY: The Board, under 49 U.S.C. 10502, exempts the trackage rights 
described in STB Finance Docket No. 33879 \1\ to permit the trackage 
rights to expire on June 25, 2000, in accordance with the agreement of 
the parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 2, 2000, UP filed a notice of exemption under the 
Board's class exemption procedures at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). The 
notice covered the agreement by The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe 
Railway Company (BNSF) to grant temporary overhead trackage rights 
to UP over 143.1 miles of BNSF's rail line between BNSF milepost 
117.4 near Shawnee, Junction, WY, and BNSF milepost 0.0 near 
Northport, NE. See Union Pacific Railroad Company--Trackage Rights 
Exemption--The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, STB 
Finance Docket No. 33879 (STB served June 14, 2000). The trackage 
rights agreement is scheduled to expire June 25, 2000. The trackage 
rights operations under the exemption were scheduled to be 
consummated on June 10, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: This exemption will be effective on June 25, 2000.

ADDRESSES: An original and 10 copies of all pleadings referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33879 (Sub-No. 1) must be filed with the Office of 
the Secretary, Surface Transportation Board, Case Control Unit, 1925 K 
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of all 
pleadings must be

[[Page 39223]]

served on petitioner's representative, Robert T. Opal, 1416 Dodge 
Street, Room 830, Omaha, NE 68179.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar (202) 565-1600. [TDD 
for the hearing impaired 1-800-877-8339.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Board's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write to, 
call, or pick up in person from: Da-To-Da Office Solutions, Suite 210, 
1925 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone: (202) 289-4357. 
[Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through TDD services 
1-800-877-8339.]
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: June 19, 2000.

    By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Burkes, and 
Commissioner Clyburn.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15969 Filed 6-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 744

To rescind the consent of Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy

Compact.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 11, 1999

Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself, Mr. OBEY, Mr. KIND, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. VENTO, Mr.

MINGE, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. LUTHER, Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin, Mr.

RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. PETRI, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. MANZULLO,

and Mr. SESSIONS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To rescind the consent of Congress to the Northeast

Interstate Dairy Compact.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL RESCISSION OF NORTHEAST

4 INTERSTATE DAIRY COMPACT.

5 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:

6 (1) In section 147 of the Agricultural Market

7 Transition Act (title I of Public Law 104–127; 7

8 U.S.C. 7256), Congress gave conditional consent to
2

•HR 744 IH

1 the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact entered into

2 among the States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachu3 setts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont,

4 as specified in section 1(b) of Senate Joint Resolu5 tion 28 of the 104th Congress (as placed on the cal6 endar of the Senate).

7 (2) In section 22 of the Northeast Interstate

8 Dairy Compact, Congress expressly reserved the

9 right to amend or rescind the Northeast Interstate

10 Dairy Compact at any time.

11 (b) RESCISSION.—Pursuant to the reservation of au12 thority referred to in subsection (a)(2), Congress hereby

13 rescinds its consent to the Northeast Interstate Dairy

14 Compact entered into among the States of Connecticut,

15 Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,

16 and Vermont.

17 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 147 of the

18 Agricultural Market Transition Act (title I of Public Law

19 104–127; 7 U.S.C. 7256) is repealed.

20 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section and the amend21 ment made by this section shall take effect on the date

22 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
IIB

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 68

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 4, 1999

Received

FEBRUARY 22, 1999

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business

AN ACT

To amend section 20 of the Small Business Act and make

technical corrections in title III of the Small Business

Investment Act.

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

HR 68 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Invest3 ment Company Technical Corrections Act of 1999’’.

4 SEC. 2. SBIC PROGRAM.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 308(i)(2) of the Small

6 Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 687(i)(2))

7 is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘In this

8 paragraph, the term ‘interest’ includes only the maximum

9 mandatory sum, expressed in dollars or as a percentage

10 rate, that is payable with respect to the business loan

11 amount received by the small business concern, and does

12 not include the value, if any, of contingent obligations, in13 cluding warrants, royalty, or conversion rights, granting

14 the small business investment company an ownership in15 terest in the equity or increased future revenue of the

16 small business concern receiving the business loan.’’.

17 (b) FUNDING LEVELS.—Section 20 of the Small

18 Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 note) is amended—

19 (1) in subsection (d)(1)(C)(i), by striking

20 ‘‘$800,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,200,000,000’’;

21 and

22 (2) in subsection (e)(1)(C)(i), by striking

23 ‘‘$900,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,500,000,000’’.

24 (c) TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.—Title III of the

25 Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 661

26 et seq.) is amended—
3

HR 68 RFS

1 (1) in section 303(g) (15 U.S.C. 683(g)), by

2 striking paragraph (13);

3 (2) in section 308 (15 U.S.C. 687) by adding

4 at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(j) For the purposes of sections 304 and 305, in

6 any case in which an incorporated or unincorporated busi7 ness is not required by law to pay Federal income taxes

8 at the enterprise level, but is required to pass income

9 through to its shareholders or partners, an eligible small

10 business or smaller enterprise may be determined by com11 puting the after-tax income of such business by deducting

12 from the net income an amount equal to the net income

13 multiplied by the combined marginal Federal and State

14 income tax rate for corporations.’’; and

15 (3) in section 320 (15 U.S.C. 687m), by strik16 ing ‘‘6’’ and inserting ‘‘12’’.

Passed the House of Representatives February 2,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated March 13, 2000, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on March 21, 2000, (65 FR 55), Organichem Corporation, 33 Riverside Avenue, Renssalaer, New York 12144, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed below: Drug
ScheduleMethylphenidate (1724)
IIMeperidine (9230)
II
 The firm plans to manufacture meperidine as bulk product for distribution to its customers and to manufacture methylphenidate for distribution to a customer. DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Organichem Corporation to manufacture the listed controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Organichem Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed above is granted. Dated: June 14, 2000. John H. King, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 00-15984  Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
No. 10-10888.

#### Johnson *v.*Mississippi.

Sup. Ct. Miss. Cer-tiorari denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 794

To repeal the law establishing the independent counsel.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1999

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To repeal the law establishing the independent counsel.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Repeal the Independ5 ent Counsel Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL.

7 Chapter 40 of title 28, United States Code, is re8 pealed.

9 SEC. 3. INDEPENDENT COUNSELS IN OFFICE.

10 Any independent counsel appointed under section 593

11 of title 28, United States Code, who is in office on the
2

•HR 794 IH

1 date of the enactment of this Act shall within 60 days

2 of such date—

3 (1) transfer any matter under investigation by

4 such counsel and any records related to such matter

5 to the Attorney General;

6 (2) file with the division of the court which ap7 pointed such counsel a report of the type required by

8 section 594(h)(1)(B) of such title and file with the

9 Congress a report of the type required by section

10 595(a)(2) of such title; and

11 (3) transfer all other records created or received

12 by such counsel to the Archivist of the United States

13 in accordance with the procedures and requirements

14 set out in section 594(k)(1).

15 SEC. 4. DIVISION OF THE COURT; ARCHIVIST OF THE

16 UNITED STATES.

17 With respect to the report filed under section 3(2),

18 the division of the court which received the report may

19 make the disclosure authorized by section 594(h)(2) of

20 such title and with respect to the records transferred

21 under section 3(3), the Archivist of the United States may

22 maintain, use, and dispose of such records in accordance

23 with section 594(k)(2) of such title.

Æ
§ 105-71.151 Later disallowances and adjustments. The closeout of a grant does not affect: ( a ) The Federal agency's right to disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of a later audit or other review;
( b ) The grantee's obligation to return any funds due as a result of later refunds, corrections, or other transactions;
( c ) Records retention as required in § 105-71.142;
( d ) Property management requirements in §§ 105-71.131 and 105-71.132; and
( e ) Audit requirements in § 105-71.126.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6133

EDWARD THORPE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , Chief Judge. ( 5:18

- hc

- 002233

- BO )

Submitted : June 30, 2020 Decided: August 27, 2020

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Edward Thorpe, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Edward Thorpe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denyin g relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (201 8 ) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (201 8 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substant ial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (201 8 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessme nt of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thorpe has not made the requisite showing. 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 this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Deatherage *&*Ewart v. Frank Howenstein.

The case of *Deatherage v. Henderson,*ante, p. 684, followed.

*Error from Wabaunsee District Court.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Horton, C. J.:

This case was submitted to this court at the same time as *Deatherage v.*Henderson, just decided. All the questions involved herein were also involved in that case; therefore, upon that authority the judgment of the district court will be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

All the Justices concurring.
§ 102-75.1180 For the purposes of this subpart, what is the policy concerning real property reported excess to GSA? ( a ) Each landholding agency must submit a report to GSA of properties it determines excess. Each landholding agency must also provide a copy of HUD's suitability determination, if any, including HUD's identification number for the property.
( b ) If a landholding agency reports a property to GSA that has been reviewed by HUD for homeless assistance suitability and HUD determined the property suitable, GSA will screen the property pursuant to § 102-75.1180(g) and will advise HUD of the availability of the property for use by the homeless as provided in § 102-75.1180(e). In lieu of the above, GSA may submit a new checklist to HUD and follow the procedures in § 102-75.1180(c) through § 102-75.1180(g).
( c ) If a landholding agency reports a property to GSA that has not been reviewed by HUD for homeless assistance suitability, GSA will complete a property checklist, based on information provided by the landholding agency, and will forward this checklist to HUD for a suitability determination. This checklist will reflect any change in classification, i.e., from unutilized or underutilized to excess.
( d ) Within 30 days after GSA's submission, HUD will advise GSA of the suitability determination.
( e ) When GSA receives a letter from HUD listing suitable excess properties in GSA's inventory, GSA will transmit to HUD within 45 days a response that includes the following for each identified property: ( 1 ) A statement that there is no other compelling Federal need for the property and, therefore, the property will be determined surplus; or
( 2 ) A statement that there is further and compelling Federal need for the property (including a full explanation of such need) and that, therefore, the property is not presently available for use to assist the homeless.
( f ) When an excess property is determined suitable and available and notice is published in the Federal Register, GSA will concurrently notify HHS, HUD, State and local government units, known homeless assistance providers that have expressed interest in the particular property, and other organizations, as appropriate, concerning suitable properties.
( g ) Upon submission of a Report of Excess to GSA, GSA may screen the property for Federal use. In addition, GSA may screen State and local governmental units and eligible non-profit organizations to determine interest in the property in accordance with current regulations. (See GSA Customer Guide to Real Property Disposal.)
( h ) The landholding agency will retain custody and accountability and will protect and maintain any property that is reported excess to GSA as provided in § 102-75.965.
#### § 301-71.211 Is there a minimum amount the late payment fee must exceed before we will pay it?

Yes, a late payment fee will only be paid when the computed late payment fee is $1.00 or greater.

[FTR Amdt. 90, 65 FR 3058, Jan. 19, 2000]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16069]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OR 82-7297b; FRL-6714-6]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revisions submitted by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 
(ODEQ), for the purpose of repealing the Consumer Products Rules, 
repealing the Architectural Coatings Rules, revising and partially 
repealing the Motor Vehicle Refinishings Rules, and revising the 
Volatile Organic Compounds Definitions. The SIP revisions were 
submitted by the State to satisfy certain Federal Clean Air Act 
requirements under section 110 and part D. In the Final Rules section 
of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as 
a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views 
this as a noncontroversial submittal amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in 
the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response 
to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA 
receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and 
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final 
rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second 
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action 
should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received in writing by August 4, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Debra Suzuki, SIP 
Manager, EPA, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, Washington 98101. Copies of the state submittal and other 
information supporting this action are available at the following 
addresses for inspection during normal business hours. The interested 
persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment 
with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day: 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-
107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101; and Oregon 
Department of Environmental Quality, 811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, 
Oregon 97204-1390.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra Suzuki, EPA, Office of Air 
Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 
553-0985.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the Direct 
Final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: May 22, 2000.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 00-16069 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofsection 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersignedofficer of American Science & Engineering, Inc., a Massachusettscorporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledgeand belief, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2003 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and (2) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/ Anthony R. Fabiano                                     |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Anthony R.  Fabiano  President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

November 13, 2003

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Bilal Burki v. Janette D. Dansby

Appellate case number: 01-22-00044-CV

Trial court case number: 21-DCV-289522

Trial court: 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

On January 25, 2022, appellant, Bilal Burki, filed an “Emergency Motion Requesting 

Stay of Proceedings in Trial Court Pending Appeal” seeking a stay of all proceedings in the trial 

court, including collection actions by the court-appointed receiver, in Cause No. 21-DCV289522, Janette D. Dansby v. Sheila Burki, individually and d/b/a Sheila Burki Wedding Décor

and/or Sheila Burki Designs, LLC; and Bilal Burki, individually and d/b/a Sheila Burki Wedding 

Décor, and/or Sheila Burki Designs, LLC; in the 268th District Court of Fort Bend County, 

Texas. We grant Appellants’ motion for emergency relief and stay all trial court proceedings in 

Cause No. 21-DCV-289522 pending final adjudication of the present appeal or until further order 

from this Court.

The Court requests a response from appellee, Janette D. Dansby, to the motion to stay. 

The response, if any, is due ten days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _________/s/ Julie Countiss____________

 Acting individually 

Date: January 26, 2022
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM   Document 172-28   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024   Page 1 of 1