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.                  

###### Presidio Trust

# AGENCY:

The Presidio Trust. 

# ACTION:

Public notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the Presidio Trust's receipt of and availability for public comment on an application from Nextel Communications (“Nextel”) for a wireless telecommunications facilities site (the “Project”) in The Presidio of San Francisco. The proposed location of the Project is directly above the north entrance of the MacArthur Tunnel and adjacent to Park Boulevard near Amatury Loop, San Francisco, California (the “Project Site”). 

The Project involves placing a Yagi cellular antenna and a one-story equipment cabinet at the Project Site. The cellular antenna will be approximately six inches by 30 inches in size. The equipment cabinet will be five feet wide by 13 feet long by six feet tall and will sit on a ten-inch concrete pad. The equipment cabinet will be surrounded by a seven-foot high, black plastic clad chain link fence. Some grading of the area around the Project Site will be required; additional planting to camouflage the equipment cabinet will be performed, altering the historic ground cover and vegetation. Both telecommunication connectivity and electrical power for the Project will be provided through new underground cables connected to existing infrastructure. 

*Comments*: Comments on the proposed Project must be sent to Devon Danz, Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052, and be received by August 4, 2000. A copy of Nextel's application is available upon request to the Presidio Trust.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Devon Danz, Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052. Telephone: 415-561-5300. 

Dated: June 26, 2000. 

Karen A. Cook, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 00-16550 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P
No. 11-9501.

#### Rodriguez-Rosales *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0 6 60 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ALVIAN ERREVY MARQUEZ ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an ext ension of time to and including July 1 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 12 2020

05/12/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0660
No. 11-5065.

#### Lomax *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Request for Information FAA-2015-6499 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Pearson: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA-2015-6499). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to

process your petition.

Per the Notice to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 Petitioners Regarding 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, part 107 letter posted to your docket, we have reviewed your original request and found 

you will be able to operate under part 107 without further relief (Tier 1). Your petition will be closed 

and you will be able operate in accordance with part 107 on the effective date of August 29, 2016). 

However, we have identified a request to conduct operations outside of the United States. In addition to 

the applicable regulations of the foreign country, operators of U.S.-registered aircraft will need to seek

relief from the provisions of Part 91, Subpart H of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations to 

conduct operations outside of the United States.

Please confirm your intention to pursue operations outside of the United States as a comment to your

docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information is submitted, please save your tracking number 

and submit your tracking number along with the information submitted to the docket via e-mail to

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the

information described above by 9/16/16. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket 

without notifying you further.

FAA Office of Rulemaking

Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 9:28 AM 

To: jpearson@cine-air.com

Request for Information FAA-2015-6499 Page 1 of 1

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&... 9/2/2016
386P15

#### John James Scheffer, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Jeremy Talbot Scheffer, Deceased v. Nathaniel Eugene Dalton

1. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-264)

1. Denied

2. Pit’s Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Dismissed as moot

3. N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys’ Conditional Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief

3. Dismissed as moot
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

OF ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2009

The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the Issuer). This
certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Issuer for the annual period ended December 31, 2009.

I, John D. Bair, certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, 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 that information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer.

This certification is executed as of March 12, 2010.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/S/    JOHN D.
BAIR
|Name:               |  | John D. Bair           
|Title:              |  | Chief Executive Officer
Order filed October 6, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-10-00708-CV

____________

Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas, Appellant

V.

Zachry Construction Corporation, Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2006-72970

O R D E R

This appeal is set for submission with oral argument on October 20, 2011. Both 

parties have filed motions regarding oral argument.

Appellant's motion to extend the time for oral argument to thirty (30) minutes per 

side is granted. Appellant may reserve a portion of its 30 minutes for rebuttal.

Appellee's motion to reserve time for rebuttal is denied.

PER CURIAM
§ 101.97 Future licensing in the 18.30-19.30 GHz band. ( a ) All major modifications and extensions to existing FS systems in the 18.3-18.58 band after November 19, 2002, or in the 18.58-19.30 band after June 8, 2000 (with the exception of certain low power operations authorized under § 101.147(r)(10)) will be authorized on a secondary basis to FSS systems. All other modifications will render the modified FS license secondary to FSS operations, unless the incumbent affirmatively justifies primary status and the incumbent FS licensee establishes that the modification would not add to the relocation costs for FSS licensees. Incumbent FS licensees will maintain primary status for the following technical changes: ( 1 ) Decreases in power;
( 2 ) Minor changes (increases or decreases) in antenna height;
( 3 ) Minor location changes (up to two seconds);
( 4 ) Any data correction which does not involve a change in the location of an existing facility;
( 5 ) Reductions in authorized bandwidth;
( 6 ) Minor changes (increases or decreases) in structure height;
( 7 ) Changes (increases or decreases) in ground elevation that do not affect centerline height;
( 8 ) Minor equipment changes.
( 9 ) Changes in ownership or control.
( b ) The provisions of § 101.83 are applicable, notwithstanding any other provisions of this section.
[65 FR 54173, Sept. 7, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 63516, Dec. 7, 2001; 68 FR 19698, Apr. 8, 2003]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-2219

LAUNEIL SANDERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; BOWATER INCORPORATED; INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-01-1973-7-13AK)

Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 21, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished by per curiam opinion.

Launeil Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Tai, Greer Susan

Goldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.;

Samuel Leon Finklea, III, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, Columbia, South Carolina; Lewis Walter

Tollison, III, Elizabeth M. McMillan, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY &

SCARBOROUGH, Greenville, South Carolina; Elizabeth Bartlett

Partlow, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Columbia, South

Carolina; Lemuel Gray Geddie, Jr., Nancy W. Monts, OGLETREE,
2

DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Launeil Sanders appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his complaint. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sanders v. EPA, No.

CA-01-1973-7-13AK (D.S.C. Sept. 21, 2001). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODRIGO CARMONA CARRERA,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 21

- 70985

Agency No. A087

- 913

- 647

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12 , 2022 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE , Circuit Judges.

Rodrigo Carmona Carrera , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing h is appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying h is a pplication for cancellation of removal.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252

. We review de novo questions of law.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

JUL 20 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 70985

Bhattarai v. Lynch

, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for

review.

Carmona Carrera’s contention that jurisdiction did not vest with the

immigration court due to the missing information in his Notice to Appear (“NTA”)

is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide

- Hernandez , No. 19

- 30006, 2022 WL

2662044, *2 *6 (9th Cir. July 11, 2022) (en banc), where the court held that a lack

of hearing information in the NTA does not deprive the immigration court of

subject matter jurisdiction, and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice

provides hearing information

. See also Karingithi v. Whitaker , 913 F.3d 1158,

1160

- 62 (9th Cir. 2019).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### § 105-68.950 Excluded Parties List System

*Excluded Parties List System (EPLS)* means the list maintained and disseminated by the General Services Administration (GSA) containing the names and other information about persons who are ineligible. The *EPLS* system includes the printed version entitled, “List of Parties Excluded or Disqualified from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs,” so long as published.
### NUMBER 13

- 11

- 000 23

- CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ AIDE CARRILLO MARTINEZ , A ppellant ,
v. SONIA PENA , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justi ces Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No.
1 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CL

- 08

- 3386

- A . Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the parties have reached an agreement to settle and compromise their differences. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant = s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant = s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed agai nst the party incurring same. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandat e will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 24th day of March , 20 11

.
# Comments on: 20-1444: C.A. CASYSO GMBH v. HEMOSONICS LLC [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.101 General provisions.

Under section 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Commission is authorized, by rule or order, to delegate certain of its functions to a panel of commissioners, an individual commissioner, an employee board, or an individual employee. Section 0.201(a) of this chapter describes in general terms the basic categories of delegations which are made by the Commission. Subpart B of part 0 of this chapter sets forth all delegations which have been made by rule. Sections 1.102 through 1.117 set forth procedural rules governing reconsideration and review of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated under section 5(c) of the Communications Act, and reconsideration of actions taken by the Commission. As used in §§ 1.102 through 1.117, the term designated authority means any person, panel, or board which has been authorized by rule or order to exercise authority under section 5(c) of the Communications Act.

[76 FR 70908, Nov. 16, 2011]
525P13-3

#### State v. Dennis O’Keith Blackwell

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

1. Dismissed *ex mero motu*

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Collateral Review Consideration Petition Second Review of Judgment Supplementary Petition Not Challenging Conviction Only the Sentencing Phase

2. Denied

3. Defs *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

3. Allowed

4. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

4. Dismissed as moot
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofAnalysts International Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended April 3, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), the undersigned, Michael J. LaVelle, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and David J. Steichen, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

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

 

 
| Dated:  May 12,  2004 | By:    |  /s/ Michael J.  LaVelle          |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                            |   | Michael J. LaVelle                     |
|                            |   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|                            |   |                                   |
|                            |   |                                   |
|                            | By:    |  /s/ David J.  Steichen           |   |
|                            |   | David J. Steichen                      |
|                            |   | Interim Chief Financial  Officer       |

 

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.359 Proof of official record; authentication of copy.

An official record or entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is within the United States or within a territory or insular possession subject to the dominion of the United States, the certificate may be made by the judge of a court of record of the district or political subdivision in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of the court, or may be made by any public officer having a seal of office having official duties in the district or political subdivision in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of his office. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign state or country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent, or by any officer in the foreign service of the United States stationed in the foreign state or country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
Exhibit
      32(a)








This
      Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
      subject to the liability of that section. This Certification shall not be
      incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other document
      pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in such
      filing.








Certification
      Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of
      Title
      18 of the United States Code








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of the Companies (as defined below) on
      Form
      10-Q (the “Reports”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael G. Morris,
      the chief executive officer of





Appalachian
      Power Company





(the
      “Companies”), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i)
      the Reports fully comply with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
      Reports fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the Companies.








/s/
      Michael G. Morris


Michael
      G. Morris


Chief
      Executive Officer








May
      4,
      2007








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
      Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02680**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 02680\02680_ Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 02680\02680_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 02680\02680_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 02680\02680_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 02680\02680_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

2 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
.