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.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

11 a.m., Thursday, January 18, 2007.

# PLACE:

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                        The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:                         *Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *San Juan Coal Company*, Docket No. CENT 2004-212. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge correctly determined that the operator's violation of 30 CFR 75.400 was not caused by its unwarrantable failure to comply with the standard).                    

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jean Ellen, (202) 434-9950/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,

Chief Docket Clerk.

[FR Doc. 07-230 Filed 1-17-07; 11:46 am]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03 - 0 2 - 00 588 - CR NO. 03 - 02 - 00589 - CR

Cathy Lynn Gilstrap

, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. 02 - 528 - K368 & 02 - 529 - K368 , HONORABLE BURT CARNES , JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Cathy Lynn Gilstrap pleaded guilty to indictments accusing her of theft. The district court ad

judged her guilty in both causes. In number 02

- 528

- K368, the court assessed punishment at incarceration in a state jail for eighteen months. In number 02

- 529

- K368, the court assessed punishment at imprisonment for ten years, probated, to begin when sente nce in the other cause is completed. In both causes, the punishment assessed was agreed to by appellant in a plea bargain agreement. Appellant filed general notices of appeal.

As part of her plea bargains, appellant promised not to appeal. This promise is binding when, as here, the court follows the agreed punishment recommendation. Blanco v. State , 18 S.W.3d 218, 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Furthermore, appellant = s general notice of appea

l does not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3) and thus does not invoke this Court = s jurisdiction. Whitt v.2

State , 45 S.W.3d 274, 275 (Tex. App. C Austin 2001, no pet.); see Cooper v. State , 45 S.W.3d 77, 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (rule 25.2(b) limits every appeal in a plea bargain, felony case).

The State =

s motions to dismiss are granted and the appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Counsel =

s motions to withdraw are dismissed.

Lee Yeakel, Justice Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Yeakel Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: October 24, 2002 Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000825999
<NAME>                        Precious Metal Mines, Inc.

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                    0
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        20,750
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     20,750
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       20,750
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                58,986
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             41,657
<OTHER-SE>                          128,833
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         20,750
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     25,151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (18,070)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        (18,070)
<EPS-BASIC>                            (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.00)



</TABLE>
New Jersey Department of Labor, Workmen’s Compensation Bureau.

#### ANTHONY GENTILE, PETITIONER, v. BOTANY WORSTED MILLS, RESPONDENT.

Eor the petitioner, *Ely & Ely.*

Eor the respondent, *Clarence B. Tippeit.*

The petitioner alleged that he had sustained a hernia by accident while pushing a two-wheeled hand truck loaded with *436wool; that he told the foreman who instructed him to seethe doctor when he arrived at eleven a. m. The occurrence was stated to have taken place at or about eight A. h. that morning. Petitioner asserts he did not continue his regular-work but waited around, doing a few odd jobs until the-doctor arrived, when he saw him, was examined and was-told he had a hernia; was advised to procure a truss and claimed he did and returned to work, finishing out the day.. He thereafter worked for another week when he was discharged by the respondent.

The foreman denied knowledge or notice of an accident or injury as claimed by petitioner, asserted that petitioner told him about eight a. m. on the morning in question that he felt a pain in his right side; that the day before, when taking a bath, he noticed a lump on his side; that the foreman told him to see the plant doctor on his arrival at eleven a. m.,. which the man did.

Without commenting further on the testimony, I am induced to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to sustain the burden required in showing a compensable hernia; that the uncontradicted evidence shows he was on his feet after this alleged occurrence for at least three hours, working around and doing odd jobs such as picking up paper and wool, and assisting in some duties until the doctor came.. There seems not to be the degree of prostration which a real, traumatic hernia would necessarily require.

Proof of accident itself is denied by the foreman, who-gives a history contrary to the petitioner’s claim.

There is the further fact that proof shows claimant appeared at an informal hearing, told his story to the referee,, who denied an award on the ground of lack of prostration.

After giving careful consideration to the evidence produced,, and the reasons advanced by the respondent herein for denial of an award,

Hakry J. Ooas, *Deputy Commissioner.*
#### Jack Morgan v. The State.

*No. 776.*

*Decided November 8.*

1. Recognizance where the Offense is not Bo Nomine.—A recognisance, to be sufficient, where the offense for which defendant was convicted is one not made such eo nomine by the Penal Code, it is necessary that its essential elements be set out in the recognizance; otherwise, the obligation is fatally defective.

2. Same—Disturbance of Religious Worship.—A recognizance which recites, that defendant “ stands charged with the offense of disturbing religious worship,’" without further setting out the elements of that offense, as defined in article 180, Penal Code, is fatally defective.

3. Same — Practice on Appeal — Jurisdiction.—Without a sufficient recognizance, the jurisdiction of the appellate court can not attach.

Appeal from the County Court of Tyler. Tried below before Hon. B. E. Moore, County Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction for disturbance of religious worship, the punishment being assessed at a fine of $25.

A motion was made by the Assistant-Attorney General to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that the recognizance was fatally defective in failing to set out the essential elements of the offense.

A statement of the facts is unnecessary.

*L. F. Chester,*for appellant.

*R. L. Henry,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The recognizance recites that defendant *“*stands charged * * * with the offense of disturbance of religious worship.” The offense sought to be recited not being one eo nomine, it is necessary that its essential elements be set out in the recognizance; otherwise the obligation is fatally defective. Without a sufficient recognizance the jurisdiction of this court can not attach to the appeal. Acts 1892, p. 38, secs. 32, 33; Mullinix v. The State, ante, p. 116, and authorities cited.

In order to constitute the offense sought to be recited, the congregation must be assembled for religious or other mentioned purpose, must be con*414ducting themselves in a lawful manner, and the disturbance must be willfully created.

The motion of the Assistant Attorney-General is well taken, and must, prevail. It is therefore granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Judges all present and concurring.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending October 25, 2008

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location          | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|PNC BK DE, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE | 83311  | 02/04/2008 | 09/12/2008     | O         | Large Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 87 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 25831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2209]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Availability of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (New), 
St. Marys Airport, St. Marys, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Atlanta Airports 
District Office on March 27, 2007, issued a Finding of No Significant 
Impact for proposed construction of a replacement airport at St. Marys, 
Georgia. Copies of the FONSI are available for review by the public for 
thirty (30) days at the following location: Federal Aviation 
Administration, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., 
Campus Building 2-260, College Park, Georgia 30337.

Scott Seritt,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 07-2209 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Fortman, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Fortman*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 14.]

*15(No. 98-899

Submitted October 13, 1998

Decided November 25, 1998.)

*Mathias H. Heck, Jr.,*Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Cheryl A. Ross,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*Rudd, Silverberg, Zaharieff & Orlins Co., L.P.A.,*and *Anthony J. Zaharieff,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals on Proposition of Law No. I is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Cook*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570.

The appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently allowed on Proposition of Law No. II.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 6
Federal Reserve Bank of: Atlanta

## Filings received during the week ending September 20, 2008

|Filer                            | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | End of Comment Period                                  
|-------------------------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------
|CLINTON BANCSHARES, INC.         | CIC            | Prior change in control notifice filed by Leslie D. Ligon, Jr., and Bertha G. Ligon, both of Clinton, Louisiana, to collectively acquire an additional 1.79 percent of the outstanding shares of Clinton Bancshares, Inc., and its subsidiary, Landmark Bank, both of Clinton, Louisiana.  Pro forma will equal 13.08 percent. | Newspaper:09/28/2008Federal Register:09/29/2008        
|Newspaper:                       | 09/28/2008    
|Federal Register:                | 09/29/2008    
|SOUTHERN STATES BANCSHARES, INC. | 3A1            | Southern States Bancshares,Inc., notice to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the outstanding shares of Southern States Bank, both of Anniston, Alabama.                                                                                                                                                | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                       | Not applicable
|Federal Register:                | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 45.149 Machinery space openings. ( a ) Machinery space openings in position 1 or 2 must be framed and enclosed by steel casings, and where the casings are not protected by other structures that meet the requirements of § 45.109, their strength must be approved by the Commandant or the assigning authority.
( b ) Access openings in casings required by paragraph (a) of this section must have doors complying with the requirements of § 45.113. Other openings in such casings shall be fitted with equivalent covers, permanently attached.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, coamings of any funnel or machinery space ventilator that must be kept open for the essential operations of the ship must— ( 1 ) In position 1, extend at least 12.5 ft above the deck; and
( 2 ) In position 2, extend at least 6 ft above the deck.
( d ) The Commandant may approve a lesser height for protected coamings.
( e ) Coamings of any fiddley or skylight over a machinery space opening in the freeboard or superstructure deck or the top of a deckhouse on the freeboard deck, must have covers of steel permanently attached and capable of being secured weathertight.
#### § 308.530 Letter requesting increase or decrease in amount of surety bond, Form MA-310.

An endorsement increasing or decreasing the amount of the surety bond, Form MA-310, shall be transmitted to the underwriting agent and may be obtained from MARAD's underwriting agent or MARAD.
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Scarborough, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Scarborough*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 22.]

(No. 98-1015

Submitted October 13, 1998

Decided November 25, 1998.)

*Timothy A. Oliver,*Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Rachel A Hutzel,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*Gray &. Duning*and *Donald E. Oda II,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Cook*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

V. V.C.M. DOB: 2/22/03, Appellant,

Respondent. No.75743-1-1 DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: 

### DEC 1 8 2017 cr. PER CURIAM. The State appeals an order sealing V.C.M.'s records following his completion ofa deferred disposition and the dismissal ofhis conviction for possession ofmarijuana. The State contends,and V.C.M.'s counsel on appeal agrees,that "[t]he trial court violated RCW 13.40.127 and RCW 13.50.260 by sealing the Respondent's juvenile criminal case file upon successful completion ofa deferred disposition before the Respondent's eighteenth birthday." Appellant's briefat 1. The State's contention and V.C.M.'s concession are controlled by our recent decision in State v. H.Z.-B., Wn.App.

, P.3d (2017)(holding that statutes pertaining to record sealing and deferred dispositions indicate thatjuvenile record should be sealed when case is dismissed and do notprohibit sealing until juvenile's eighteenth birthday). In light of H.Z.B., it is unnecessary to reach V.C.M.'s contention thattrial counsel was ineffective forfailing to argue an alternative basis for sealing the record. Affirmed. For the Court:

) 3: 

# ,
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.242 Filed 07/18/03 Page 1 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.243 Filed 07/18/03 Page 2 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.244 Filed 07/18/03 Page 3 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.245 Filed 07/18/03 Page 4 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.246 Filed 07/18/03 Page 5 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.247 Filed 07/18/03 Page 6 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.248 Filed 07/18/03 Page 7 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.249 Filed 07/18/03 Page 8 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.250 Filed 07/18/03 Page 9 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.251 Filed 07/18/03 Page 10 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.252 Filed 07/18/03 Page 11 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.253 Filed 07/18/03 Page 12 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.254 Filed 07/18/03 Page 13 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.255 Filed 07/18/03 Page 14 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.256 Filed 07/18/03 Page 15 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.257 Filed 07/18/03 Page 16 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.258 Filed 07/18/03 Page 17 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.259 Filed 07/18/03 Page 18 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.260 Filed 07/18/03 Page 19 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.261 Filed 07/18/03 Page 20 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.262 Filed 07/18/03 Page 21 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.263 Filed 07/18/03 Page 22 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.264 Filed 07/18/03 Page 23 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.265 Filed 07/18/03 Page 24 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.266 Filed 07/18/03 Page 25 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.267 Filed 07/18/03 Page 26 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.268 Filed 07/18/03 Page 27 of 28
Case 2:02-cv-72802-GER ECF No. 37, PageID.269 Filed 07/18/03 Page 28 of 28