alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 0.434 Data bases and lists of authorized broadcast stations and pending broadcast applications.

The FCC makes available its data bases, Consolidated Database System (CDBS) and Licensing and Management System (LMS), containing information about authorized broadcast stations, pending applications for such stations, and rulemaking proceedings involving amendments to the TV and FM Table of Allotments. CDBS and LMS contain frequencies, station locations, and other particulars. CDBS and LMS may be viewed at the Commission's website at *www.fcc.gov* under Media Bureau.

[89 FR 7243, Feb. 1, 2024]
§ 302-17.24 How does my agency compute my WTA? Each time your agency pays a covered, taxable relocation expense, regardless of whether it is a reimbursement, allowance, or direct payment to a vendor, it is considered “supplemental wages” as defined in 26 CFR 31.3402(g)-1(a) (see also IRS Publication 15, Employer's Tax Guide). You owe taxes on the WTA itself because, like most other relocation allowances, it is taxable income. To reimburse you for the taxes on the WTA itself, your agency computes the WTA by using the grossed-up withholding formula below and the appropriate supplemental wage rate, as specified in IRS Publication 15. This rate, along with examples of how to calculate the WTA, is published in an FTR bulletin available at *https://gsa.gov/ftrbulletins*. The formula for calculating the WTA is: WTA = R/(1 − R) × Expense Where R is the withholding rate for supplemental wages. Note to § 302-17.24 :
Your agency must deduct withholding for FICA (Medicare and Social Security), as the WTA does not cover such expenses.
[FTR Amdt. 2020-02, 84 FR 64782, Nov. 25, 2019]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30427 Conference Calendar

CHARLES T. BUTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RICHARD L. STALDER; BURL CAIN; KATHY FONTENOT; RICHARD IEYOUB; STATE OF LOUISIANA; All present and past Corrections Officials in both their Official and Individual capacities, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:03-CV-624-B

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Before this court is Charles Butler’s (Louisiana prisoner # 209995) request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to pay the filing fee. The district court denied Butler leave to proceed IFP upon a finding that he had accumulated three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).No. 04-30427 -2- Section 1915(g) provides that a prisoner may not proceed IFP in a civil action or in an appeal of a judgment in a civil action if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, while incarcerated, brought an action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The determination as to whether a prisoner is in “imminent danger” must be made at the time the prisoner seeks to proceed with the appeal or files a motion to proceed IFP. Baños v. O’Guin , 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998). Butler fails to show that he is in “imminent danger” as required under § 1915(g). Accordingly, his motion for IFP is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
#### § 105-74.655 Individual.

*Individual* means a natural person.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN CARLOS BRIBIESCA-ALCALA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-70366

Agency No. A070-743-774

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 11, 2011** 

Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Juan Carlos Bribiesca-Alcala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his

motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v.

FILED

AUG 15 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-70366

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Bribiesca-Alcala fails to address, and thereby waives

any challenge to, the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider for failure to identify

any error of law or fact in its prior decision denying his motion to reopen. See

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding issues

which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). 

We lack jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s contention that the filing deadline

for his motion should have been equitably tolled on account of the actions or

inactions of the Department of Homeland Security because Bribiesca-Alcala failed

to raise it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.

2004) (generally requiring exhaustion of claims before the agency). 

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Bribiesca-Alcala’s remaining

contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
§ 60-30.8 Motions; disposition of motions. ( a ) *Motions.* Motions shall state the relief sought, the authority relied upon and the facts alleged, and shall be filed with the Administrative Law Judge. If made before or after the hearing itself, the motions shall be in writing. If made at the hearing, motions may be stated orally; but the Administrative Law Judge may require that they be reduced to writing and filed and served on all parties in the same manner as a formal motion. Unless otherwise ordered by the Administrative Law Judge, written motions shall be accompanied by a supporting memorandum. Within 10 days after a written motion is served, or such other time period as may be fixed, any party may file a response to a motion.
( b ) *Disposition of motions.* The Administrative Law Judge may not grant a written motion prior to expiration of the time for filing responses thereto, except upon consent of the parties or following a hearing, but may overrule or deny such motion without awaiting response: *Provided,* That prehearing conferences, hearings, and decisions need not be delayed pending disposition of motions.
April 23, 2012

No. 11-9505.

#### Alexander *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
#### § 301-10.302 How do I determine distance measurements for my travel?

| If you travel by | The distance between your origin and destination is |
| --- | --- |
| Privately owned automobile or privately owned motorcycle | As shown in paper or electronic standard highway mileage guides, or the actual miles driven as determined from odometer readings. |
| Privately owned aircraft | As determined from charts issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). You may include in your travel claim with an explanation any additional air mileage resulting from a detour necessary due to adverse weather, mechanical difficulty, or other unusual conditions. If a required deviation is such that airway mileage charts are not adequate to determine distance, you may use the formula of flight time multiplied by cruising speed of the aircraft to determine distance. You must convert nautical miles to statute or regular miles when submitting a claim (1 nautical mile equals 1.15077945 statute miles). |

[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15955, Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by FTR Amdt. 108, 67 FR 57965, Sept. 13, 2002; FTR Amdt. 2005-05, 70 FR 61046, Oct. 20, 2005; FTR Amdt. 2010-04, 75 FR 59095, Sept. 27, 2010]
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

L.B., a child

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 3324

[ October 12, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Carlos S. Rebollo , Judge; L.T. Case No. 16

- 1388DL

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR

, C ONNER and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 32.1

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Angelica Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 26, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Don W. Hubble, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (1)       The Report fully complies with the requirements of
                      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
                      of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated:  September 4, 2003
                                        /s/ Don W. Hubble
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Don W. Hubble
                                        Chairman, President and Chief
                                        Executive Officer of
                                        Angelica Corporation
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00528

- CR

Robert Lee Brown, III

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ Fr om County Criminal Court No. 5

o f Tarrant County (1302060 )

October 3, 2013

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This co urt has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_________________________________ Justice Lee Gabriel
# Comments on: 21-190: In Re NETFLIX, INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential
#### IN THE MATTER OF M. FRANCIS STUBBS.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 584)

(380 SE2d 462)

Decided June 22, 1989.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Joe David Jackson, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Joseph D. McGovern,*for Stubbs.

Per curiam.

On April 24, 1989, the respondent, M. Francis Stubbs, and the State Bar of Georgia entered into a settlement agreement regarding the State Bar’s disciplinary action against Stubbs for Stubbs’ plea of guilty to the misdemeanor of wilfully failing to file an income tax return for 1983. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Stubbs admits that his plea constitutes a violation of Standard 66 of State Bar Rule 4-102. However, the State Bar agrees that certain mitigating factors exist surrounding Stubbs’ plea, including certain problems regarding Stubbs’ law practice; the fact that Stubbs’ home was destroyed by fire and was not sufficiently insured; the fact that Stubbs incurred substantial future indebtedness in his 1981 divorce; and the fact that in 1985 Stubbs paid all of his outstanding taxes for 1983 and all outstanding civil penalties. The parties agree that Stubbs should be suspended from the practice of law for 45 days.

The special master, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, found Stubbs guilty of violating Standard 66, and recommended that Stubbs be suspended for 45 days from the practice of law.

Having reviewed the record, this court hereby adopts the special master’s recommendation. Stubbs’ 45-day suspension shall begin July 10, 1989.

*All the Justices concur.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAVIER GOMEZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 142 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of June, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# #22.2

To all Commercial Unitary Air Conditi oners and Heat Pump stakeholders: As a follow-on to the e-mail sent earlier this week, the Department of Energy is writing to inform you that the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) for the commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps energy conservation standards rulemaking is now available for your review at the following website: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/ac_hp.html Stakeholder participation and comment on this document is an integral part of the rulemaking process. Stakeholders are invited to provide comment on all the methodologies, inputs, and assumptions presented in the Department's ANOPR analysis. In order to present and clarify the ANOPR material published today, the Department is organizing two events. Both are open to the public, and we invite you to inform other stakeholders who may be interested in these events.
1. Live Internet "webcast" on the rulemaking process and spreadsheet tools, 1:00-4:00 p.m. EDT, August 12, 2004; and 2. Public Meeting on ANOPR at the Department of Energy in Washington, DC, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., September 30, 2004 At the public meeting, all statements will be recorded and transcribed, and will become part of the official record of the standards rulemaking. A draft of the public meeting agenda is attached to this email message. If you would like to participate in the webcast, please contact Mr. James Raba at jim.raba@ee.doe.gov or (202) 586-8654, no later than August 9, 2004. If you would like toparticipate in the public meeting, please contact Ms Brenda Edwards-Jones at brenda.edwardsjones@ee.doe.gov or 202-586-2945. The deadline for submitting written comments on the ANOPR and TSD is November 12, 2004. You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or by courier. Wherever possible, comments in the electronic format should carry the electronic signature of the author. Absent an electronic signature, comments submitted electronically must be followed and authenticated by submitting a signed original paper document. All comments (electronic and paper) should clearly identify the Docket number: EE-RM/STD-00-550 and/or RIN 1904-AB08. E-mail : commercialairconditioner.anopr@ee.doe.gov Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Departme nt of Energy, Office of Building Technologies, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121.Courier : Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Building Technologies, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independe nce Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: 202-586-2945 We appreciate your reviewing the materials and look forward to your participation in this event.

James Raba Project Manager Building Technologies Program, EE-2J Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy U.S. Department of Energy
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 794 Introduced in House (IH)]

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.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Repeal the Independent Counsel Act 
of 1999''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Chapter 40 of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.

SEC. 3. INDEPENDENT COUNSELS IN OFFICE.

    Any independent counsel appointed under section 593 of title 28, 
United States Code, who is in office on the date of the enactment of 
this Act shall within 60 days of such date--
            (1) transfer any matter under investigation by such counsel 
        and any records related to such matter to the Attorney General;
            (2) file with the division of the court which appointed 
        such counsel a report of the type required by section 
        594(h)(1)(B) of such title and file with the Congress a report 
        of the type required by section 595(a)(2) of such title; and
            (3) transfer all other records created or received by such 
        counsel to the Archivist of the United States in accordance 
        with the procedures and requirements set out in section 
        594(k)(1).

SEC. 4. DIVISION OF THE COURT; ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES.

    With respect to the report filed under section 3(2), the division 
of the court which received the report may make the disclosure 
authorized by section 594(h)(2) of such title and with respect to the 
records transferred under section 3(3), the Archivist of the United 
States may maintain, use, and dispose of such records in accordance 
with section 594(k)(2) of such title.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ATLAS
CORPORATION JUNE 30, 1997 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,027                   1,027
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      945                     945
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,127                   1,127
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,225                   3,225
<PP&E>                                          65,482                  65,482
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,201                  45,201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,337                  30,337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,132                   6,132
<BONDS>                                          5,800                   5,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        27,015                  27,015
<OTHER-SE>                                    (18,726)                (18,726)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,337                  30,337
<SALES>                                          1,649                     995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,649                     995
<CGS>                                            1,828                     964
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,828                     964
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,129                     826
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 607                     297
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,181)                 (6,578)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,108)                 (6,546)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,108)                 (6,546)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.33)                   (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.33)                   (.27)
        

</TABLE>
382P10-5

#### State v. John Lewis Wray, Jr.

Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Notice of Appeal

Dismissed

Beasley, J.,

recused
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of LipidViro Tech, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), I, Thomas J. Howells, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:May 12, 2009By:/s/Thomas J. HowellsThomas J. Howells, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 109-38.801 Obtaining fleet credit card.

A dedicated fleet credit card is issued with each GSA-leased motor vehicle. DOE offices electing to use fleet credit cards for agency-owned vehicles and motor equipment shall request the assignment of new accounts from the Office of Management. Following the assignment, DOE organizations shall submit orders for issuance of fleet credit cards in accordance with the instructions provided by GSA.
No. 11-9059.

#### Horton *v.*Dickinson, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Comments on: 20-1948: CELLSPIN SOFT, INC. v. PANASONIC CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
# Split Phase Rigid Base Motors

8 www.aosmithmotors.com 

## Features • Class “B” Insulation • Open Construction • Sleeve & Ball Bearing • Continuous Duty • Reversible • 60 HZ

F.L. Stock A p p r o x .Dim. Conn. HP RPM Volts Amps S.F. Frame Number Alternate Bearings Protector “C” “AG” Enclosure Dia. Notes 1⁄6 1725 115 4.0 1.35 48 OS2014L Sleeve None 8.9 7.0 Open 39 2 1⁄41725 115 4.6 1.35 48 OS2024L Sleeve None 9.15 7.3 Open 39

115 4.6 1.35 48 OB2024L Ball None 9.15 7.3 Open 39 1⁄3 1725 115 6.2 1.0 48 OS2030L Sleeve None 9.4 7.5 Open 39 2

115 6.2 1.0 48 OS2030 Sleeve Auto 9.4 7.5 Open 39 2 115 6.2 1.0 56Z OS2031L Sleeve None 9.4 7.9 Open 39 1 1⁄2 1725 115 8.3 1.0 56 OS2050L Sleeve None 10.3 8.1 Open 39 2
Note: 1.56Z = 1/2” flat x 1-1/2” shaft, 3-1/2” shaft height 2. Item to be discontinued when stock is depleted See page 117 for mounting dimensions



### Shaft Dimensions 48 = 1/2” Flat x 1-5/8” 56 = 5/8” Keyed x 1-7/8 OS2014L 

### Features:Class “B” Insulation • Continuous Duty • Open Construction • Reversible • Sleeve & Ball Bearing • 60 HZ