alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 208 (Friday, October 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 63035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8912]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--DVD Copy Control Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 21, 2006, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), DVD Copy Control 
Association (``DVD CCA'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, 2GeeksinaLab, Inc., Palmdale, CA; Advanced 
Duplication Services, LLC, Plymouth, MN; Capgemini US LLC, Irving, TX; 
Giant Video Electronics Co., Ltd., Hong Kong, Hong Kong-China; Marubun/
Arrow(S) Pte Ltd., Singapore, Singapore; Novatron Co. Ltd., Seongnam-
si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea; OVK Optics Technology Co., Ltd., 
Shenzhen, People's Republic of China; Premium Disc Corp., Mississauga, 
Ontario, Canada; Shunde Xiongfeng Electric Industrial Company, 
Guangdong, People's Republic of China; and Xiamen Punch Video Co., 
Ltd., Xiamen, People's Republic of China have been added as parties to 
this venture. Also, Cal-Comp Electronics, Bangkok, Thailand has 
withdrawn as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and DVD CCA intends to file additional 
written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On April 11, 2001, DVD CCA filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
August 3, 2001 (66 FR 40727).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 22, 
2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on July 20, 2006 (71 FR 41257).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 06-8912 Filed 10-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### § 13.2 When these rules apply.

These rules apply to adversary adjudications before the Department.

[69 FR 2845, Jan. 21, 2004]
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County 

Case No. CAL18-18171

Argued: January 7, 2019

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

 No. 39

September Term, 2018

PATRICIA MOORE 

v.

FERNWOOD MOBILE HOME PARK, INC.

 

Barbera, C.J. 

Greene

McDonald

Watts

Hotten

Getty

Wilner, Alan M.,

 (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned)

JJ.

 ORDER

Filed: January 8, 2019 
Patricia Moore, * IN THE

Petitioner

* COURT OF APPEALS

v.

* OF MARYLAND

Fernwood Mobile Home Park, Inc.

Respondent * No. 39

* September Term, 2018 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

Whereas, a petition for writ of certiorari having been filed by Petitioner and granted 

by this Court with a writ of certiorari being issued on October 2, 2018; 

Whereas, Petitioner having filed a timely opening brief in this appeal and 

Respondent having failed to file a responsive brief or sought an extension of time to do so; 

Whereas, Counsel for Respondent having moved to withdraw his appearance in this 

matter on December 13, 2018 on the basis of Respondent’s belief that the appeal was moot; 

Whereas, Petitioner having moved to preclude Respondent from filing a brief on the 

basis that Respondent failed to timely file a brief in this appeal; 

Whereas, this Court issued an Order on January 4, 2019 in which it denied 

Respondent’s motion of Counsel to withdraw his appearance, granted Petitioner’s motion 

to bar Respondent from filing a brief, and limited oral argument to the issue of the current 

procedural posture and the appropriate disposition of the case; 
Whereas, the Court held oral argument on Monday, January 7, 2019, and heard 

arguments from both parties, 

Now, therefore, it is this 8th day of January, 2019,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that this case be, and it is hereby, 

remanded to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County with instructions to dismiss the 

appeal to that court as moot, and it is further

ORDERED, that the Respondent shall pay the costs in this Court and the Circuit 

Court. Mandate to issue forthwith. 

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera 

Chief Judge
```

[109th Congress Public Law 238]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ238.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 507]]

Public Law 109-238
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 
  1965, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: June 30, 2006 -  [H.R. 5603]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Second Higher Education 
Extension Act of 2006. 20 USC 1001 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Second Higher Education Extension Act 
of 2006''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.

    Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 (Public 
Law 109-81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by striking ``June 30, 
2006'' and inserting ``September 30, 2006''.

SEC. 3. <<NOTE: 20 USC 1001 note.>> RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Extension Act of 
2005 as amended by this Act, shall be construed to limit or otherwise 
alter the authorizations of appropriations for, or the durations of, 
programs contained in the amendments made by the Higher Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171) to the provisions of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 
2004.

    Approved June 30, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5603:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            June 21, considered and passed House.
            June 23, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
§ 1156.18 Prohibition against intimidation or retaliation. A recipient may not engage in acts of intimidation or retaliation against any person who: ( a ) Attempts to assert a right protected by the Act; or
( b ) Cooperates in any mediation, investigation, hearing, or other part of the Endowment's investigation, conciliation and enforcement process.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 17, 2018

No. 04-17-00375-CR

Charles D. TUTTOILMONDO Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2246

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice 

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice 

Irene Rios, Justice 

Appellant has filed a brief in which he contends the trial court abused its discretion by 

denying his motion to suppress his statements on the ground that they were not voluntarily made. The 

record does not contain the trial court’s findings and conclusions on the voluntariness issue. 

The trial court is required to make written findings of fact “in all cases concerning 

voluntariness.” Vasquez v. State, 411 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The court was 

obligated “to make findings and conclusions that were adequate and complete, covering every 

potentially dispositive issue that might reasonably be said to have arisen in the course of the 

suppression proceedings.” State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667, 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). This court 

may not imply findings in support of the trial court’s suppression order. See id. When the trial court 

fails to make such findings, the proper remedy is for the appellate court to abate the appeal and 

remand to the trial court for the entry of written findings. Green v. State, 906 S.W.2d 937, 939-40 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1994) 

We therefore abate this appeal and remand it for the trial court to make the findings of fact 

and conclusions of law required by section 6 of article 38.22. We order the trial court to make its 

written findings not later than September 4, 2018 and order the clerk of the trial court to file the 

findings and conclusions with this court in a supplemental record not later than September 6, 2018.
It so ORDERED on this 17th day of August, 2018.

PER CURIAM 

ATTESTED TO: ___________________________________

 KEITH E. HOTTLE,

 Clerk of Court
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Sudan

On November 3, 1997, by Executive Order 13067, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Sudan pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Sudan. On April 26, 2006, by Executive Order 13400, I expanded the national emergency by determining that the conflict in Sudan's Darfur region posed an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I ordered the blocking of property of certain persons connected to that conflict. On October 13, 2006, I issued Executive Order 13412 to amend the comprehensive sanctions with respect to Sudan set forth in Executive Order 13067.

Because the actions and policies of the Government of Sudan continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, the national emergency declared on November 3, 1997, as expanded on April 26, 2006, must continue in effect beyond November 3, 2006. Therefore, consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Sudan.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                     and transmitted to the Congress.                

[FR Doc. 06-9070

Billing code 3195-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Joseph Somme, Appellant.

*People*v. *Somme,*120 App. Div. 20, affirmed.

(Argued December 2, 1907;

decided December 17, 1907.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 8, 1907, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the city of New York convicting the defendant of the crime of unlawfully assuming the title of doctor of medicine in violation of section 153 of the Public Health Law.

*Robert G. Beyer*for appellant.

*William Travers*Jerome, *District Attorney (Robert 8. Johnstone*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment of conviction affirmed ; no opinion.

Concur : Cullen, Oh. J., O’Brien, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Yann, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 796 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 796

   To exempt discharges of fire retardant by Federal land management 
  agencies, State governments, political subdivisions of States, and 
  Tribal governments from the permitting requirements of the National 
    Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 14, 2023

  Ms. Lummis (for herself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Risch, Mr. Daines, and Mr. 
   Sullivan) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To exempt discharges of fire retardant by Federal land management 
  agencies, State governments, political subdivisions of States, and 
  Tribal governments from the permitting requirements of the National 
    Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Forest Protection and Wildland 
Firefighter Safety Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN DISCHARGES OF FIRE 
              RETARDANT.

    (a) Definition of Federal Land Management Agency.--In this section, 
the term ``Federal land management agency'' means--
            (1) the Forest Service;
            (2) the National Park Service;
            (3) the Bureau of Land Management;
            (4) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
            (5) the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
            (6) the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    (b) No Permitting Required.--Notwithstanding any provision of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), a permit 
under section 402 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) shall not be required 
for the discharge of fire retardant in connection with fire 
suppression, control, or prevention activities carried out by a Federal 
land management agency, a State government, a political subdivision of 
a State, or a Tribal government.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,629
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,517
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,136)
<INVENTORY>                                     54,474
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               158,110
<PP&E>                                         169,413
<DEPRECIATION>                                (59,083)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 314,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,529
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                   (105,670)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   314,049
<SALES>                                        407,609
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               407,609
<CGS>                                          283,203
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  283,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   660
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (13,460)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,454
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,571)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,883
<DISCONTINUED>                                  58,958
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (728)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    78,113
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     9.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     9.19
        

</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-24-00329-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

IN THE INTEREST OF E.R. III, A CHILD

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE 214TH DISTRICT COURT

OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Tijerina and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

On June 24, 2024, appellant filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal a 

judgment or order entered in trial court cause number 2017-FAM-5249-F. On June 27, 

2024, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it appears there is no final, appealable 

order. Appellant was further notified that if the defect was not cured within ten days, the 

appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). Furthermore, on June 27, 

2024, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply 
2

with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b), 9.5(e), 25.1(d)(1), (2), and (4). See id. 

R. 9.1(b), 9.5(e), 25.1(d).

Appellant has neither identified a final, appealable order nor cured the defective 

notice of appeal. Furthermore, appellant has failed to respond to the notices from the 

clerk requiring a response or other action within the time specified. Accordingly, the 

appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 42.3(b),(c).

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the

28th day of August, 2024.
Searched for **http://www.cdc.gov/std/Gonorrhea/STDFact-gonorrhea.htm**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.cdc.gov/std/Gonorrhea/STDFact-gonorrhea.htm**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-13-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            (642)
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        (106,062)
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          (10)
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,341)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (115,606)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,945)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (61)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (61)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 12a.6 Suitability criteria. ( a ) All properties, buildings and land will be determined suitable unless a property's characteristics include one or more of the following conditions: ( 1 ) *National security concerns.* A property located in an area to which the general public is denied access in the interest of national security (e.g., where a special pass or security clearance is a condition of entry to the property) will be determined unsuitable. Where alternative access can be provided for the public without compromising national security, the property will not be determined unsuitable on this basis.
( 2 ) *Property containing flammable or explosive materials.* A property located within 2000 feet of an industrial, commercial or Federal facility handling flammable or explosive material (excluding underground storage) will be determined unsuitable. Above ground containers with a capacity of 100 gallons or less, or larger containers which provide the heating or power source for the property, and which meet local safety, operation, and permitting standards, will not affect whether a particular property is determined suitable or unsuitable. Underground storage, gasoline stations and tank trucks are not included in this category and their presence will not be the basis of an unsuitability determination unless there is evidence of a threat to personal safety as provided in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
( 3 ) *Runway clear zone and military airfield clear zone.* A property located within an airport runway clear zone or military airfield clear zone will be determined unsuitable.
( 4 ) *Floodway.* A property located in the floodway of a 100 year floodplain will be determined unsuitable. If the floodway has been contained or corrected, or if only an incidental portion of the property not affecting the use of the remainder of the property is in the floodway, the property will not be determined unsuitable.
( 5 ) *Documented deficiencies.* A property with a documented and extensive condition(s) that represents a clear threat to personal physical safety will be determined unsuitable. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, contamination, structural damage or extensive deterioration, friable asbestos, PCB's, or natural hazardous substances such as radon, periodic flooding, sinkholes or earth slides.
( 6 ) *Inaccessible.* A property that is inaccessible will be determined unsuitable. An inaccessible property is one that is not accessible by road (including property on small off-shore islands) or is land locked (e.g., can be reached only by crossing private property and there is no established right or means of entry).
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

 11 a.m., Friday, December 8, 2006.

# PLACE:

 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, DC., 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Surveillance Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,

Acting Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 06-9285  Filed 11-15-06; 3:51 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
#### §§ 1151.35-1151.40 [Reserved]
- 5091
- 5092
- 5093
- 5094
- 5095
- 5096
- 5097
- 5098
- 5099
- 5100
- 5101
- 5102