alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 11690-001, Alaska]

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for an original license for the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.'s (AVEC) proposed Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, and has prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA). The project would be located near the city of Old Harbor, Alaska on Kodiak Island, predominantly on the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.

                    On January 19, 2000, the Commission staff issued a draft environmental assessment (DEA) for the project and requested that comments be filed with the Commission within 45 days. Comments on the DEA were filed by the National Marine Fisheries Service,                           ( print page 40629)                        Alaska Department of Fish and Game and polarconsult alaska, inc and are addressed in the FEA.                

The FEA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

Copies of the FEA are available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room, Room 2A, at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, and may also be viewed on the web at http:///www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (please call (202) 208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-16570  Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. TA-201-71] 

# AGENCY:

United States International Trade Commission. 

# ACTION:

Amendment of scope of the investigation to exclude shelf-stable crabmeat. 

# SUMMARY:

                        At the request of petitioners in the investigation, the Commission amended the scope of investigation No. TA-201-71, Crabmeat from Swimming Crabs, to exclude shelf-stable crabmeat. Shelf-stable crabmeat is defined as crabmeat that is packed in airtight containers and is produced using additives and a thermal manufacturing process so that it requires no refrigeration. The Commission's notice of institution of the investigation was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of March 20, 2000 (65 FR 15008).                     

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

June 23, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.

Issued: June 26, 2000.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-16592 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
SCWC-14-0001019
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

IN THE MATTER OF STEPHANIE C. STUCKY, Petitioner/Complainant-Appellant,

v. DWIGHT TAKENO, HSTA Interim Executive Director, RAY CAMACHO, HSTA Deputy Executive Director, ERIC NAGAMINE, HSTA UniServ Director, DAVID FORREST, HSTA UniServ Director, and HAWAI # I STATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Respondents/Respondents-Appellees
and
HAWAI # I LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, State of Hawai # i, Respondent/Intervenor-Agency Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-14-0001019; CIVIL NO. 12-1-0704(2))
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Petitioner/Complainant-Applicant Stephanie C. Stucky’s application for writ of certiorari filed on October 17, 2018, is hereby rejected. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, November 26, 2018. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-14-0001019 26-NOV-2018 09:38 AM
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4252 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4252

To designate the Administrator of the Small Business Administration as 
            a member of the Interagency Trade Organization.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 1994

 Mr. LaFalce introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Administrator of the Small Business Administration as 
            a member of the Interagency Trade Organization.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 242 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. 1872) is 
amended by inserting before the penultimate sentence in subsection (a) 
the following:
                    ``(G) The Administrator of the Small Business 
                Administration.''.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10-A


                          LINGMAN ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT


THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the 31st day of December 2003.

BETWEEN:		BOARDWALK CREATION LTD.
			4 Princess Street
			Orangeville, Ontario L9W 3V5
								("Vendor")

AND:			OSPREY GOLD CORP.
			35 Commerce Road
			Orangeville, Ontario L9W 3X5

								("Purchaser")

WHEREAS, the Vendor is the owner of assets at its Lingman Lake
mine site and is desirous of selling and the Purchaser is
desirous of acquiring these assets consisting of the following:

a)	250,000 gallons of Artic Purple Diesel Fuel and Storage
Tank Farm with an assigned value of $2,400,000.00 US and;

b)	Excavated ore, with proven gold reserves of 2000 troy
ounces with an assigned value of $800,000.00 US and;

c)	A 300 ton per day ball mill, diesel generators and all
controls with an assigned value of $2,800,000.00 US.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual
covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the parties
hereto ("Parties") agree as follows:

1.	The Purchaser agrees to purchase the above listed assets
for an aggregate total of $6,000,000 to be paid by way of
8,000,000 shares of Osprey Gold Corp. common stock and a
Net Smelter Return of  3% of all gold produced from the
Lingman Lake Property. (1% of this 3%  NSR belongs to
Lucien Cool and is the subject of an agreement dated May
27th, 2003 between Lucien Cool and Boardwalk Creation Ltd.)

2.	The Purchaser acknowledges that the purchase of the Assets
is at his or her own risk and herby agrees to make no
claims against the Vendor based on alleged representations,
warranties, or collateral agreements, especially with
respect to the fitness of the Assets as listed above.



<PAGE>


3.	The Purchaser will indemnify and save harmless the Vendor
from any GST, penalty, interest or other amounts which may
be payable by or be assessed against the Vendor under the
ETA as a result of or in connection with the Vendor's
failure to collect and remit any GST applicable on the sale
and conveyance of the  Assets to the Purchaser by the
Vendor.

4.	The Purchaser has applied for and is waiting for a GST
number assignment.


DATED at Orangeville, this 31st day of December, 2003



BOARDWALK CREATION LTD.			OSPREY GOLD CORP.




Per: /s/ Betty North                     Per: /s/ Douglas Budden
--------------------                     -----------------------
Betty North, President                   Douglas Budden, Vice-President








<PAGE>
No. 11-55.

#### Liban *v.*Middlebrook at Monmouth.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                  |   | State or Other  |   |       |    |
|---------------------------------------|--------|-----------------|--------|------------|---------|
|                                  |   | Jurisdiction of |   | Percentage |    |
|                                  |   | Incorporation   |   | Ownership  |    |
|                                  |   |            |   |       |    |
| Parent                                |   |            |   |       |    |
|                                  |   |            |   |       |    |
| Patapsco Bancorp, Inc.                |   | Maryland        |   |       | — |   |
|                                  |   |            |   |       |    |   |
| Subsidiary (1)                        |   |            |   |       |    |   |
|                                  |   |            |   |       |    |   |
| The Patapsco Bank                     |   | Maryland        |   |       | 100     | % |
|                                  |   |            |   |       |    |   |
| Subsidiaries of The Patapsco Bank (1) |   |            |   |       |    |   |
|                                  |   |            |   |       |    |   |
| PFSL Holding Corp.                    |   | Maryland        |   |       | 100     | % |
|                                  |   |            |   |       |    |   |
| Prime Business Leasing                |   | Maryland        |   |       | 100     | % |
|                                  |   |            |   |       |    |   |
| Patapsco Financial Services, Inc.     |   | Maryland        |   |       | 100     | % |

----

| (1) | The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in the consolidated financial statements appearing in Item 8 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
FOR THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS 

AT TEXARKANA, TEXAS 

CHRISTIAN SIBLEY '

Appellant 

V. ' CASE NO. 06-15-00009-CR

TRIAL COURT NO. 2013-2143

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Appellee '

THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE APPELLANT=S BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

NOW COMES, CHRISTIAN SIBLEY, the Appellant herein, and moves the Court for an 

extension of time to file Appellant=s Brief in this cause, pursuant to Rules 38.6 and 10.5 (b) of 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and in support thereof would show the Court as follows: 

I.

The Appellant in this cause was convicted in County Court at Law One, Gregg County, 

Texas in cause number 2013-2143 for the offense of Escape from Custody. On October 20, 

2014, punishment was assessed at three hundred thirty (330) days in the County Jail. 

II. 

The Reporter=s record was filed on February 9, 2015. The Appellant=s Brief is due on or 

about May 1, 2015. 

III. 

The Appellant hereby requests an extension of time to file Appellant=s Brief. 

The undersigned counsel has been unable to devote sufficient time to the review of the 

record, research and preparation of Appellant=s Brief for the following good and sufficient 

reasons: 

ACCEPTED

06-15-00009-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

5/1/2015 10:34:28 AM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 5/1/2015 10:34:28 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
1. Defense Counsel has been involved in a very busy trial and appellate schedule in both 

state and federal courts.

2. Counsel underwent surgery in Boston Massachusetts and is still under a doctor’s care.

(See letter from Dr. Rotzler attached.)

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned counsel, on behalf of 

Appellant, respectfully prays that this Honorable Court extend the time for filing Appellant=s 

Brief for an additional seven (07) days, to Friday, May 8, 2015. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

__/s/ Clement Dunn_______

Attorney for Appellant

140 E. Tyler Street, Suite 240

Longview, TX 75601

(903) 753-7071 Fax (903) 753-8783

State Bar # 06249300
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

As Attorney of Record for Defendant, I do hereby Certify that a true and correct copy of 

the above and foregoing document was this date provided to the Attorney for the State.

Date: 05-01-15

__/s/ Clement Dunn_______

Attorney for Appellant
FOR THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

AT TEXARKANA, TEXAS

CHRISTIAN SIBLEY '

Appellant

V. ' CASE NO. 06-15-00009-CR

TRIAL COURT NO. 2013-2143

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee '

ORDER

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the _____ day of __________________, 2015, came

on to be considered the above and foregoing Third Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Appellant=s Brief. After consideration of the same, it is the opinion of the Court that Appellant=s 

Motion be:

( ) GRANTED, and the present cause is hereby extended until _________________, 

2015.

( ) DENIED, to which ruling the Appellant excepts.

( ) SET FOR HEARING ON THE _____ day of __________________, 2015, at 

_____ o=clock_____.

SIGNED:

_____________________________

JUDGE PRESIDING
#### § 302-3.410 Must I sign a service agreement to qualify for a TCS?

No, you do not need to sign a service agreement to qualify for a TCS.
[Crim. No. 3259.

Second Appellate District, Division One.

November 15, 1939.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. VAN COURTLAND HARRIS, Appellant.

*465Thomas P. Cruce for Appellant.

Earl Warren, Attorney-General, and John L. Nourse, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

DORAN, J. —

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of grand theft, and appeals from the judgment and from the order denying a motion for a new trial. The subject-matter of the theft was an oriental rug which had been purchased in 1930 for the sum of $1450, by J. T. Dye. The evidence reveals that Mr. Dye, after having made several attempts to sell the rug, delivered it to appellant for display only, on November 23, 1938. On December 12, 1938, the defendant and appellant delivered it to one Ralph Edington, an attorney, to secure the payment of a prior indebtedness and further advances. Defendant signed a note for $573.61 to cover the indebtedness and advances, and executed a formal pledge agreement, pledging the rug as security for the debt.

Appellant had promised to see Mr. Dye on the day following the delivery of the rug to him, the defendant. However, several months had elapsed before defendant was located,— numerous attempts to communicate with him having failed,— at which time the defendant assured Mr. Dye that efforts were being made to find a purchaser. Defendant concealed from Mr. Dye the fact that the rug had been pledged to Edington.

At the time of defendant’s arrest he denied all knowledge of the rug or of its whereabouts, but later admitted that it was at Mr. Edington’s office; whereas, at the trial, defendant contended that he owned the rug, which he declared had been in his possession since 1929. He denied that Mr. Dye had ever been the owner thereof.

Mr. Dye’s testimony, however, was abundantly corroborated in all of its important details; indeed, it is not contended by appellant that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the con.vietion.

*466Appellant’s sole contention on appeal, in substance, is that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury that under the provisions of section 511 of the Penal Code, it was a sufficient defense that the property was appropriated openly and avowedly, and under a claim of title preferred in good faith," even though such claim is untenable.

The contention is without merit. There was no evidence in the record that the defendant had “appropriated” the property openly and avowedly. To the contrary, it was defendant’s position at the trial that he had always owned the property. There was no evidence of appropriation on any theory; hence the instruction was properly refused.

The judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial are, and each of them is, affirmed.

York, P. J., and White, J., concurred.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 639

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the

Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human

person from the moment of fertilization.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 9, 1999

Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. PAUL, Mr. PITTS, Mr.

BACHUS, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. HANSEN,

Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. SHOWS, Mr.

LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. PICKERING, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. PACKARD,

Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. BARCIA, Mr.

NEY, Mr. DELAY, Mr. PETRI, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Mr. WAMP,

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of

amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of

each born and preborn human person from the moment

of fertilization.

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

•HR 639 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Right to Life Act of

3 1999’’.

4 SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.

5 To implement equal protection for the right to life

6 of each born and preborn human person from the moment

7 of fertilization, and pursuant to the duty and authority

8 of the Congress, including Congress’ power under Article

9 I, Section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Con10 gress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amend11 ment to the Constitution of the United States, the Con12 gress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by

13 the Constitution is vested in each human being at fertiliza14 tion.

15 SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF ‘‘STATE’’.

16 For the purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘State’’ used

17 in the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of

18 the United States and other applicable provisions of the

19 Constitution includes the District of Columbia, the Com20 monwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or pos21 session of the United States.

Æ
# Comments on: Notice of Modified Access Restrictions for the National Courts Building Through June 30, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000005385
<NAME>                        AMERICAN LIST CORP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                           MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                     2,962,248
<SECURITIES>                               6,644,279
<RECEIVABLES>                              4,515,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                  60,000
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          15,597,528
<PP&E>                                     1,558,947
<DEPRECIATION>                               957,476
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            19,718,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1,292,058
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      44,324
<OTHER-SE>                                16,828,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              19,718,714
<SALES>                                    8,842,849
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           8,842,849
<CGS>                                      1,718,522
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              4,004,499
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            83,054
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            4,962,222
<INCOME-TAX>                               1,844,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                               3,118,222
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0
        


</TABLE>
089P16

#### Dora P. Bullock v. Adam Hopler, Hopler & Wilms, LLP

1. Plt’s *Pro Se*Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA15-537)

1. Dismissed *ex mero motu*

2. Plt’s *Pro Se*PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Denied