alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16573]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL00-86-000]


Boylston Municipal Light Department, et al., Complainants, v. 
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, et al., Respondents; Notice 
of Filing

June 26, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 22, 2000, the Boylston Municipal Light 
Department and 21 other Secondary Purchasers of power from the Vermont 
Yankee Nuclear Generating Station (Secondary Purchasers), tendered for 
filing a complaint against Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation 
(VY) and the seven non-Vermont Sponsors of VY from whom the Secondary 
Purchasers obtain their entitlements to VY capacity and energy. The 
complaint asserts that VY is violating the terms of the contractual 
formula rate by currently collecting in its charges to the Sponsors 
(who in turn pass through a share of those charges to the Secondary 
Purchasers) certain transaction expenses incurred in connection with 
the proposed sale of the VY plant. The complaint requests refunds of 
all such transaction costs that the Secondary Purchasers have paid. The 
complaint also asserts that upon consummation of the proposed plant 
sale, the Secondary Purchasers will have contributed more than their 
contractual share of VY's total costs relating to decommissioning of 
the VY plant, and requests refunds of such excess contributions upon 
consummation of the plant sale. The Secondary Purchasers also request 
that the complain proceedings be consolidated with the review of the 
proposed plant sale transaction under Federal Power Act Sections 203 
and 205 in Docket Nos. EC00-46-000, ER00-1027-000, ER00-1028-000, ER00-
1029-000, ER00-1030-000, and EL00-33-000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before July 14, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or 
before July 14, 2000.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16573 Filed 2-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16376]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1105]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 26; Atlanta, GA Area

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Georgia Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of Foreign-
Trade Zone 26 (Atlanta, Georgia), submitted an application to the Board 
for authority to expand FTZ 26 to include a site at the Canton-Cherokee 
County Business and Industrial Park located in Canton, Georgia (Site 
3), adjacent to the Atlanta Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 59-99; 
filed 11/23/99);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (64 FR 67844, 12/3/99) and the application has been processed 
pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to expand FTZ 26 is approved, subject to the Act 
and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and further 
subject to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of June 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:

Pierre V. Duy,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16376 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ROBERT MICHAEL MILLER,

Petitioner,

v.

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3137

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-3330-13-0504-I-1.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

Robert Michael Miller moves without opposition for a 

30-day extension of time, until September 29, 2014, to file 

his informal brief, for an extension of time, until November 6, 2014, to file his formal brief, and for other relief. 

Upon consideration thereof, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted to the extent that an informal 

brief is due no later than September 29, 2014 or, in the 

Case: 14-3137 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2014
2 MILLER v. FDIC

alternative, a formal brief is due no later than November 

6, 2014.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court

s27

Case: 14-3137 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2014
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1226: ROYAL BRUSH MANUFACTURING, INC. v. US [ERRATA], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"MtESrbb6Zx\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-04-2023-22-1226-royal-brush-manufacturing-inc-v-us-errata-22-1226-errata-8-4-2023_2168401\/\">22-1226: ROYAL BRUSH MANUFACTURING, INC. v. US [ERRATA], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-04-2023-22-1226-royal-brush-manufacturing-inc-v-us-errata-22-1226-errata-8-4-2023_2168401\/embed\/#?secret=MtESrbb6Zx\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1226: ROYAL BRUSH MANUFACTURING, INC. v. US [ERRATA], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"MtESrbb6Zx\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ERRATA Posted: ROYAL BRUSH MANUFACTURING, INC. v. US [ERRATA](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1226 Origin: CIT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
August 8, 2013

Mr. Dennis F. Scheffler

10841 East Rosemary Lane

Scottsdale, AZ 85255

Dear Mr. Scheffler:

This is in response to your letter, dated July 25, 2013 (public docket No. FAA-2005-23237)

petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from § 91.109(a)

and (b)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, 

would allow you to provide recurrent flight training in Beechcraft Bonanza/Debonair type 

aircraft when those aircraft are equipped with a functioning throw over control wheel.

On August 19, 2011, the FAA issued a revision to14 CFR § 91.109 as part of it “Pilots in 

Command Proficiency Check and Other Changes to the Pilot and Pilot School Certification 

Rules” final rule (76 FR 54095; August 31, 2011), which became effective October 31, 2011. 

A copy of the rule is enclosed.

Since the relief you requested is permitted in the revised § 91.109, an exemption is no longer 

required. Therefore we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda D. Courtney

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
[Civ. No. 6214.

Third Appellate District.

October 3, 1939.]

#### VIRGINIA CROSSAN, Respondent, v. ALEXANDER CROSSAN, Appellant.

Chester P. Gannon and John B. Heinrich for Appellant.

McAllister & Johnson for Respondent.

DEIRUP, J., *pro tem*.

Plaintiff was granted a divorce from defendant in the State of Nevada, and subsequently brought this action for a division of the community property. The trial court awarded to the plaintiff a .dwelling house and the household furniture therein, which it found to be of the net value of $1500. It gave to the defendant an insurance *40policy, an automobile, and a cabin which it found to be worth $806, and also an interest in the State Employees’ Retirement Fund o£ the value of $811.67, as found by the court. Defendant has appealed from the judgment.

The only question raised upon the appeal is whether the interest in the Retirement Fund is to be treated as community property. Defendant claims that it is not property and should be ignored, and that with this interest omitted, the division of the rest of the items of community property is inequitable. On the other hand, the defendant has been awarded more than half of the community property if the interest in the fund was properly included with the other items.

The Retirement Fund in question is the one provided for by the State Employees’ Retirement Law. (Stats. 1931, p. 1442, as amended.) The defendant is an employee of the state. A portion of his salary has been deducted and paid into a fund which is under the control of a board of administration. He may withdraw his portion of the fund if his employment is discontinued; otherwise, it is beyond his control. The act provides for allowances for permanent disability, for death benefits and for an annuity and pension upon retirement. The defendant’s interest in the fund bears a certain resemblance to an insurance policy, but it differs in that he is compelled to contribute to the fund, and also in that the state will pay to him a larger sum than his contributions alone would warrant.

It is true that the defendant has no property or contract right in the fund. Such a right cannot accrue until the happening of an event upon which payment is contingent. But when such an event occurs, the amount which will be payable will represent earnings. *(Cheney*v. *City and County of San*Francisco, 7 Cal. (2d) 565 [61 Pac. (2d) 754].)

The money which has been paid into the Retirement Fund by defendant was community property. His interest is a valuable right which has been purchased with community funds. It was proper, therefore, for the trial court to award to the plaintiff other community property equivalent in value to that interest.

The judgment is affirmed.

Thompson, Acting P. J., and Tuttle, J., concurred.
§ 51-2.4 Determination of suitability. ( a ) For a commodity or service to be suitable for addition to the Procurement List, each of the following criteria must be satisfied: ( 1 ) *Employment potential.* The proposed addition must demonstrate a potential to generate employment for persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
( 2 ) *Nonprofit agency qualifications.* The nonprofit agency (or agencies) proposing to furnish the item must qualify as a nonprofit agency serving persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, as set forth in part 51-4 of this chapter.
( 3 ) *Capability.* The nonprofit agency (or agencies) desiring to furnish a commodity or service under the JWOD Program must satisfy the Committee as to the extent of the labor operations to be performed and that it will have the capability to meet Government quality standards and delivery schedules by the time it assumes responsibility for supplying the Government.
( 4 ) *Level of impact on the current contractor for the commodity or service.* ( i ) In deciding whether or not a proposed addition to the Procurement List is likely to have a severe adverse impact on the current contractor for the specific commodity or service, the Committee gives particular attention to: ( A ) The possible impact on the contractor's total sales, including the sales of affiliated companies and parent corporations. In addition, the Committee considers the effects of previous Committee actions.
( B ) Whether that contractor has been a continuous supplier to the Government of the specific commodity or service proposed for addition and is, therefore, more dependent on the income from such sales to the Government.
( ii ) If there is not a current contract for the commodity or service being proposed for addition to the Procurement List, the Committee may consider the most recent contractor to furnish the item to the Government as the current contractor for the purpose of determining the level of impact.
( b ) In determining the suitability of a commodity or service for addition to the Procurement List, the Committee also considers other information it deems pertinent, including comments on a proposal published in the Federal Register to add the commodity or service to the Procurement List and information submitted by Government personnel and interested persons. Because the Committee's authority to establish fair market prices is separate from its authority to determine the suitability of a commodity or service for addition to the Procurement List, the Committee does not consider comments on proposed fair market prices for commodities and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List to be pertinent to a suitability determination.
[56 FR 48977, Sept. 26, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 59341, Nov. 16, 1994; 62 FR 66529, Dec. 19, 1997]
```

[House Report 111-694]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-694

======================================================================

 
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSE 
   AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO THE BILL (H.R. 3082) MAKING 
 APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 
                      2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

 December 21, 2010.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

                Mr. Polis, from the Committee on Rules,
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                      [To accompany H. Res. 1782]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 1782, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for the consideration of the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to 
H.R. 3082, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface 
Transportation Extensions Act, 2011. The resolution makes in 
order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on 
Appropriations that the House concur in the Senate amendment to 
the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3082. The 
resolution provides one hour of debate on the motion equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all 
points of order against consideration of the motion except 
those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The resolution 
provides that the Senate amendment shall be considered as read.

                         EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

    Although the rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the motion (except those arising under clause 
10 of rule XXI) the Committee is not aware of any points of 
order against the motion. The waiver of all points of order 
against the motion is prophylactic.

                                  

```
§ 302-17.56 What do I do, under the one-year process, once my agency has provided my W-2(s)? ( a ) You must use all W-2(s) that you have received to file your tax returns. On those returns, you must include all taxable relocation expenses shown on your W-2(s) as income, including your WTA and RITA (if any). Please note that you must also include all WTA as withholding, in addition to the standard withholding from your payroll wages.
( b ) If you finished your relocation within one calendar year, and your agency paid all of your relocation reimbursements, allowances, and direct payments to vendors in the same calendar year, before the cutoff date, then your tax returns for that calendar year are the end of your relocation tax process. If, on the other hand, your agency reimburses you for relocation expenses, or pays allowances or relocation vendors on your behalf, during a second (and possibly a third) calendar year, then you and your agency repeat the process above for each of those years.
No. 11-5080.

#### Paschall *v.*Virginia.

Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-rari denied.
§ 0.3 The Chairperson. ( a ) One of the members of the Commission is designated by the President to serve as Chairperson, or chief executive officer, of the Commission. As Chairperson, he/she has the following duties and responsibilities: ( 1 ) To preside at all meetings and sessions of the Commission.
( 2 ) To represent the Commission in all matters relating to legislation and legislative reports; however, any other Commissioner may present his own or minority views or supplemental reports.
( 3 ) To represent the Commission in all matters requiring conferences or communications with other governmental officers, departments or agencies.
( 4 ) To coordinate and organize the work of the Commission in such a manner as to promote prompt and efficient disposition of all matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
( b ) The Commission will, in the case of a vacancy in the Office of the Chairperson of the Commission, or in the absence or inability of the Chairperson to serve, temporarily designate one of its members to act as Chairperson until the cause or circumstance requiring such designation has been eliminated or corrected.
[32 FR 10569, July 19, 1967, as amended at 88 FR 21426, Apr. 10, 2023]
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A1532. GREGORY K. ANKERICH v. THE STATE.

In 2011, Gregory K. Ankerich was sentenced as a first offender to five years’

probation for possession of methamphetamine. In 2014, based on his commission of

newfelonies, the trial courtrevoked Ankerich’s probation and adjudicated himguilty.

Ankerich then filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Because the underlying subject matter of Ankerich’s appeal is the revocation

of his “first offender” probation, he was required to file an application for

discretionary appeal in order to obtain review in this Court. See OCGA § 5-6-

35 (a) (5); Jones v. State, 322 Ga. App. 269 n. 2 (745 SE2d 1) (2013); Zamora v.

State, 226 Ga. App. 105 (485 SE2d 214) (1997). Ankerich’s failure to file an

application for discretionary appeal deprives us of jurisdiction to consider this appeal,

which is hereby DISMISSED. See White v. State, 233 Ga. App. 873 (505 SE2d 228)

(1998).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

06/17/2015

June 17, 2015
S89A0009.

#### ALEXANDER v. THE STATE.

(383 SE2d 877)

Weltner, Justice.

Joe Alexander, Jr. shot and killed Jeffrey Clowers with a handgun. He was indicted for malice murder, found guilty of felony murder by a jury, and sentenced to life imprisonment.1

Alexander, Clowers, and Bertha Alexander lived together. Early on the morning of the killing, Alexander and Clowers became engaged in a fistfight. When police arrived, Alexander fled. Later that day there was another altercation between Alexander and Clowers. When the police arrived, they again were unable to find Alexander. Later, Alexander returned to the home and fatally shot Clowers. No weapon was found on or near Clowers’ body.

1. Considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that from the evidence a rational trier of fact could have found Alexander guilty of felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. The trial court instructed the jury on justification. Alexander complains that it did not charge specifically that justification is a defense to aggravated assault, that being the underlying felony in the felony murder conviction. He contends that the failure so to charge precluded the jury from considering his defense of self-defense to aggravated assault, the underlying felony.

The trial court’s charge on justification was correct'. No reasonable juror would have understood that it applied only to the charge of homicide and did not apply to the underlying felony of aggravated assault. The same contention was rejected in *Jolley v. State,*254 Ga. 624, 628 (331 SE2d 516) (1985): “We find, however, that a fair reading of the trial court’s charge clearly indicates that the court charged that *441[the defendant’s] defense of self-defense could apply to the underlying felony.”

Decided September 28, 1989.

*A. Nevell Owens,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Andrew S. Ree,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The crime was committed on November 19, 1987, and Alexander was indicted on January 22, 1988. He was found guilty of felony murder on May 4, 1988, and on the same date was sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed his motion for new trial on May 16, 1988, and it was overruled by order dated January 9, 1989, and filed on March 23, 1989. His notice of appeal was filed on April 18, 1989, and was docketed in this court on May 16,1989. This appeal was submitted without oral argument on June 30, 1989.