alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16285]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Department of the 
Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of a meeting of 
the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, July 20, 2000, 1:00 p.m. 
to 5:00 p.m. and Friday, July 21, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be at the Radisson Hotel, 500 Leisure Lane, 
Sacramento, California 95815. Telephone 916/922-2020 (FAX 916/920-
7312).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Russell P. Smith, Chief, 
Environmental and Natural Resource Division, Northern California Area 
Office, 1639 Shasta Dam Boulevard, Shasta Lake, California 96019. 
Telephone: 530/275-1554 (TDD 530/450-6000).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife 
Task Force will meet to formulate and implement the ongoing Trinity 
River watershed ecosystem management program for fish and wildlife. 
This program considers the needs of multiple species and their 
interactions with physical habitats in restoring the natural function, 
structure, and species composition of the ecosystem, recognizing that 
all components are interrelated.

    Dated: June 19, 2000.
Lester A. Snow,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 00-16285 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-U
Searched for **http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/uk.html**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/uk.html**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
§ 109-38.200 General requirements. ( a ) - ( e ) [Reserved]
( f ) Requests made pursuant to 41 CFR 102-34.155 through 102-34.170 for limited exemption from the requirement for displaying U.S. Government tags and other identification on motor vehicles, except for those vehicles exempted in accordance with 41 CFR 102-34.175 and § 109-38.204-1 of this subpart, shall be submitted to the Office of Management for approval. Each approved exemption must be renewed annually, and the Office of Management shall be notified promptly when the need for a previously authorized exemption no longer exists. Copies of certifications and cancellation notices required to be furnished to GSA pursuant to 41 CFR 102-34.160 will be transmitted to GSA.
( g ) Requests for temporary removal and substitution of Government markings shall be submitted with justification to the DPMO for review and approval. Copies of the determination and justification required to be furnished to GSA will be transmitted to GSA by the DPMO.
No. 11-9011.

#### Johnson *v.*Hedgpeth, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KEITH A. LEAK

No. 206A15

Filed 18 December 2015

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,_N.C. App._, 773 S.E.2d 340 (2015), reversing an order denying defendant’s motion to suppress signed on 26 November 2013 *nunc pro tunc*6 August 2013 by Judge Tanya T. Wallace, and vacating defendant’s guilty plea and a judgment entered on 14 November 2013 by Judge Mark E. Klass, all in Superior Court, Anson County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 17 November 2015.

*Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.*

*Narendra K. Ghosh for defendant-appellee.*

PER CURIAM.

We vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to that court for further remand to the trial court for reconsideration of defendant’s motion to suppress in light of *Rodriguez v. United States,*_ U.S. _, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015).

VACATED AND REMANDED.
No. 11-1035.

#### Shipp et ux. *v.*Donaher et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
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.                  

###### National Institute for Literacy

          - [CFDA No. 84.257S]

# AGENCY:

The National Institute for Literacy (NIFL).

# ACTION:

 Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The National Institute for Literacy published an announcement in the                         **Federal Register**                         of June 9, 2000, Notice of Awards being offered. The document contained an incorrect deadline submission date.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        William Hawk; National Institute for Literacy; 1775 I Street, NW., Suite 730; Washington, DC 20006; Telephone: 202-233-2042; FAX: 202-233-2050; E-mail:                         *whawk@nifl.gov*

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of June 9, 2000, in FR Doc. 00-14547, on page 36729, in the second column, correct the submission “date” caption to read:                    

Public and private nonprofit organizations with knowledge of and expertise in adult literacy and the subject matter of the Special Collection, or consortia of such organizations.

Deadline for Applications: July 17, 2000.

Dated: July 20, 2000.

Sharyn Abbott,

Executive Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-15971  Filed 6-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6055-01-M
#### § 302-5.13 What methods may my agency use to reimburse me for househunting trip expenses?

Your agency will reimburse your househunting trip expenses as indicated in the following table:

| For | You are reimbursed |
| --- | --- |
| You and/or your spouse's transportation expenses | Your actual transportation costs. |
| You and/or your spouse's subsistence expenses | One of the following two: (a) A per diem allowance at the standard CONUS rate (*see <https://www.gsa.gov/perdiem>*), for you and/or your spouse if you travel separately, or if you both travel together, the standard CONUS rate multiplied by 1.75), for the 10 days or less that your agency authorizes for you; or |
| | (b) Only if offered by your agency and chosen by you, a lump sum, as follows: |
| | (1) If you perform a househunting trip and your spouse does not, or if your spouse performs a househunting trip and you do not, multiply the applicable locality per diem rate by 5.00 (*see <https://www.gsa.gov/perdiem>*). |
| | (2) If you and your spouse both perform a househunting trip, together or separately, multiply the applicable locality per diem rate by 6.25 (*see <https://www.gsa.gov/perdiem>*). |

[FTR Amdt. 98, [66 FR 58196](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/66-FR-58196), Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 108, [67 FR 57969](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/67-FR-57969), Sept. 13, 2002; FTR Amdt. 2011-01, [76 FR 18337](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/76-FR-18337), Apr. 1, 2011; [85 FR 39850](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/85-FR-39850), July 2, 2020]
JAYINSLEE Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON 

### Office of the Governor 

### RECEIVED ON: 

### <4­ 

## JAN 1 2 2015

EPA Region 10 Office ofthe Regional Administrator

January 8, 2015

Dennis McLerran, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 Dear Mr. McLerran: Thank you for your December 11, 2014, letter regarding the Grain Handling Facility at Freeman. In your letter you indicated that you were seeking the State of Washington's concurrence with adding the Grain Handling Facility at Freeman (GHFF) to the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). I support EPA's proposed addition ofthe GHFF to the NPL. Carbon Tetrachloride contamination of ground water originating at the GHFF has impacted the Freeman School Campus drinking water supply well. In my view, it is essential to pursue cleanup ofthis contamination and restore this valuable ground water resource. Thank you for your attention to this matter. The Washington State Department ofEcology' s Toxics Cleanup Program is available to work closely with your staff to address this site. 

### If you have any other needs, please contact Jim Pendowski, Toxics Cleanup Program Manager at (360) 407-7177.

P.O. Box 40002 • Olymp ia , Washington 98504-0002 • (360) 902 -4111 • www.governor.wa.gov
[Cite as Imburgia v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2011-Ohio-1768.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

CHARLES IMBURGIA 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-12214-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

{¶ 1} On November 29, 2010, plaintiff, Charles Imburgia, filed a complaint 

against defendant, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Plaintiff alleges on 

June 14, 2010 at approximately 9:55 a.m., defendant’s agent refused to allow him to 

use the restroom facility resulting in him defecating on himself. Plaintiff seeks damages 

in the amount of $2,500.00. The filing fee was waived. 

{¶ 2} On December 22, 2010, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Defendant 

asserts that plaintiff’s case should be dismissed on two grounds. First, plaintiff asserts 

that defendant’s agent acted manifestly outside the scope of defendant’s agent’s 

employment, with malicious purpose, in bad faith or in wanton or reckless manner. This 

court does not have subject matter jurisdiction concerning an individual who acts 

beyond the scope of his employment. Second, plaintiff asserts his constitutional rights 

were violated. It is well settled that constitutional claims are not actionable in the Court 

of Claims. For these reasons plaintiff’s case should be dismissed. 

{¶ 3} On December 30, 2010, plaintiff filed an objection to defendant’s motion to 
Case No. 2010-12214-AD - 2 - ENTRY

dismiss. It appears from a reading of this document that plaintiff asserts defendant is in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Constitutional 

claims are not actionable in the Court of Claims. Bleicher v. Univ. of Cincinnati College 

of Med. (1992), 78 Ohio App. 3d 302, 604 N.E. 2d 783; Burkey v. Southern Ohio 

Correctional Facility (1988), 38 Ohio App. 3d 170, 528 N.E. 2d 607. 

{¶ 4} Therefore, defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s case is 

DISMISSED. the court shall absorb the court costs of this case. 

 ________________________________ 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Charles Imburgia, #502-009 Stephen A. Young 

1800 S. Avon Belden Road Department of Rehabilitation 

Grafton, Ohio 44044 and Correction 

 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

DRB/laa 

Filed 1/21/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 4/8/11
Order filed September 12, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00622-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.J. AND T.J., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-03941J

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the 

termination of the parent-child relationship is at issue. Appellant’s brief was due 

September 9, 2019, but it has not been filed. 

Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be 

brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. 

See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). This accelerated schedule 

requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines. 

Therefore we order appellant’s appointed counsel, Angela Elisabeth Ellis to 

file appellant’s brief no later than September 23, 2019. If the brief is not filed by 
that date, counsel may be required to show cause why he should not be held in 

contempt of court. In addition, the court may require appointment of new counsel 

due to the failure to timely file appellant’s brief. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Spain, and Poissant.
No. 11-9496.

#### Gardner *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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 May 10, 2013

t0507 

# Order

May 10, 2013

146642

WILLIAM H. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 146642

COA: 312009

MCAC: 12

- 000031

MIRAGE CONSULTING, INC., and

CASTLEPOINT NATIONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation signed by the plaintiff and counsel

for the defendants agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is

considered, and the application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and

without costs.
###### Editorial Note on Part 101-8

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 101-8 appear at 68 FR 51374, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 101-8.701 Scope of General Services Administration's age discrimination regulation.

This regulation sets out General Services Administration's (GSA) policies and procedures under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, in accordance with 45 CFR part 90. The Act and the Federal regulation permits Federally assisted programs or activities to continue to use certain age distinctions and factors other than age which meet the requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SC OTT B ISHOP, individually and on be ha lf of a ll othe rs simila rly situa te d , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. 7-ELEVEN, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15986 D.C . No. 5:12-c v-02621-EJD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Edwa rd J. Da vila , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

11, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WARDLAW , PAEZ, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. Sc ott B ishop, a

c onsum e r of 7-Ele ve n bra nd pota to c hips, a

ppe a ls the dismissa l of his se c ond a

m e nde d c om

pla int (SAC ) pursua

nt to Fe d e ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we
re ve rse . 

# FIL ED JUN 07 2016 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 distric t c ourt e rre d by c onc luding tha

t the SAC fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic i e nt to e sta

blish sta tutory sta nding under C a l ifornia ’ s unfa ir c om pe tition la

w, C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode § 17200, e t se q. , fa lse a dve rtising la w, C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode § 17500, a

nd C onsum e r Le ga l R e m e die s Ac t, C a l. C iv. C ode § 1750, e t se q . At this pre lim ina

ry sta ge of the a c tion, B ishop suffic ie ntly a lle ge d a c tua l re lia

nc e , whic h he wa s re quire d to do under e a c h of his the orie s be c a u se his c la im s sound in fraud. S e eK w ik s e t C orp. v . Supe rior C

ourt , 246 P.3d 877, 888 n.9 (C a l. 2011); In
reTobac c o II C

ase s , 207 P.3d 20, 39 n.17 (C a l. 2009). B ishop a de quate ly a lle ge d that he re lie d on 7-Ele ve n’ s pota to c hips’ front of pa c k a ge “ 0g tra ns fat” and “ no c hole ste rol” re pre se ntations, a nd tha t he would not ha

ve purc ha se d the c h ips ha d 7- Ele v e n inc lude d on thefront of thepa c ka ge the “ Se e nutrition inform ation for fa

t
c onte nt” disc losure re quire d by the U.S. Food a

nd Drug Administra

tion. Se e 21 C .F.R . §§ 101.13(h)(1), 101.62(d)(i)(ii)(D); se ealso Re i d v . J ohnson & J ohnson , 780 F.3d 952, 958 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ [T] he re a sona b le c onsum e r sta

nda rd, unlike the i ndividual re l i anc e re quire m e nt . . . , is not a sta nding re quire m e nt.” ). C a lifornia ’ s c onsum e r prote c tion sta tute s re nde r state m e nts a c tiona b le whic h,
a lthough not te c hnic a lly

fa lse , ha ve a te nde nc y to m isle a d c onsum e rs be c a use the sta te m e nts fa il to disc lose or dire c t the c onsum e r’ s atte ntion to othe r re le va nt

2inform at ion. Se eDav i s v . HSBC

Bank N e v ada, N .A. , 691 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th C ir. 2012); Day

v . AT& T C

orp. , 74 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 55, 60 (C t. App. 1998). RE V E RSE D
.

3
#### § 300-80.8 What must we do to apply for a test program extension?

The head of the agency or designee must submit a request to extend the test program to the Administrator of General Services, Office of Government-wide Policy, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, not later than 120 days prior to the expiration of the test period. The request for extension must contain the test program results to that date and clearly enumerate the benefits, qualitatively or quantitatively or both, of granting a test program extension and must specify the duration of time for which an extension is requested.

[FTR Amdt. 2010-03, 75 FR 58330, Sept. 24, 2010, as amended at 85 FR 39848, July 2, 2020]
501 P.2d 1204

#### STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Billie BOWENS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 427.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Department A, Division 1.

Oct. 19, 1972.

Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Lotus A. Moore, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Billie Bowens, in pro. per.

STEVENS, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, Billie Bowens, herein referred to as the defendant, was initially charged with the offense of robbery. The information was filed after a preliminary hearing. In the Superior Court an amended information was filed charging the defendant with an assault with the intent to commit robbery. It was to the latter charge that he plead guilty. Thereafter he was adjudged guilty and sentenced to the Arizona State Prison. The defendant appealed and the Public Defender was appointed to represent him.

The Public Defender filed an ANDERS brief, the most serious point being the record’s silence as to the finding of a factual basis for the plea and the judgment. This Court permitted the Public Defender to withdraw and afforded the defendant the opportunity of urging other matters. The defendant failed to avail himself of the opportunity. The State filed its answering brief and after the defendant’s time to reply thereto had expired, no reply being presented, the Court considered the merits of the appeal.

*364An examination of the record supported the Public Defender’s position that the record was silent as to the trial court’s finding of a factual basis. On the Court’s own motion it was ordered suspending the appeal to permit an enlargement of the record. State v. Tritle, 16 Ariz.App. 45, 490 P.2d 1173 (1971).

Thereafter the record was enlarged to show the factual basis supported by the probation officer’s report. The factual basis is adequately supported by the reporter’s transcript of the preliminary hearing which was of record in the Superior Court prior to the entry of the plea of guilty.

This Court has examined the other suggestions made by the Public Defender and has examined the record for fundamental error pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1715.

Based upon our overall review of this case, it is

Affirmed.

CASE and DONOFRIO, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITEDSTATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned, the Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ofAmerican Science & Engineering, Inc. (the “Company”), does herebycertify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

1.            the Company’s Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended December 31, 2009 (the “10-Q”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.            the information contained in the 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: February 9,  2010 | /s/ Kenneth J.  Galaznik                                 |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | Kenneth J. Galaznik                                           |
|                         | Senior Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to American Science & Engineering, Inc. and will beretained by American Science & Engineering, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
§ 302-9.600 What means of transportation may we authorize for POV's? You may authorize: ( a ) Commercial means of transportation for POV's if available at reasonable rates and under reasonable conditions; or
( b ) Government means of transportation for POV's on a space-available basis.
[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2011-06, 76 FR 71890, Nov. 21, 2011]
#### § 302-17.32 Who chooses the one-year or two-year process?

Your agency or a major component of your agency determines whether it will adopt a one-year or two-year RITA process. Your agency may use the one-year RITA process for one or more specific categories of employees and the two-year process for one or more other categories.
No. 11-1031.

#### Schulz Partners, LLC *v.*Zephyr Cove Property Owners Assn., Inc.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.
#### § 102-79.115 What guidelines must an agency follow if it elects to establish a public access defibrillation program in a Federal facility?

Federal agencies electing to establish a public access defibrillation program in a Federal facility must follow the guidelines, entitled “Guidelines for Public Access Defibrillation Programs in Federal Facilities,” which can be obtained from the Office of Governmentwide Policy, Office of Real Property (MP), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405.