alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1152.26 Board determination under 49 U.S.C. 10903. ( a ) The following schedule shall govern the process for Board consideration and decisions in abandonment and discontinuance application proceedings from the time the application is filed until the time of the Board's decision on the merits: Day 0—Application filed, including applicant's case in chief. Day 10—Due date for oral hearing requests. Day 15—Due date for Board decision on oral hearing requests. Day 20—Due date for Notice of Application to be published in the Federal Register. Day 45—Due date for protests and comments, including opposition case in chief, and for public use and trail use requests. Day 60—Due date for applicant's reply to opposition case and for applicant's response to trail use requests. Day 110—Due date for service of decision on the merits. Day 120—Due date for offers of financial assistance, except that if an application has been granted by decision issued sooner than Day 110, the offer of financial assistance shall be due 10 days after service of the decision granting the application.
( b ) If an application for abandonment or discontinuance is filed by a bankrupt railroad, the Board shall base its decision (Report to the Bankruptcy Court) on the application and any responses to the application that are filed. In each such instance, the Board shall establish a reasonable period of time for filing responses to the application so that public input can be included in the Board's decision (Report) and so that the Board will be able to meet a deadline imposed or requested by the Bankruptcy Court. Because Board action on abandonment applications by bankrupt railroads is advisory only, no environmental filings or analysis is necessary. See 49 CFR 1105.5(c).
[61 FR 67883, Dec. 24, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 34670, June 27, 1997]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,463,554
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               25,489,919
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,448,000
<INVENTORY>                                 14,072,694
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,255,537
<PP&E>                                      46,729,883
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,667,666
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              73,321,205
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,682,416
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,713,913
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,845,956
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                73,321,205
<SALES>                                    124,358,802
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           124,358,802
<CGS>                                       86,784,938
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               86,784,938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            30,857,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               529,747
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,228,157
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,326,783
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,133,872
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,192,911
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,192,911
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33


</TABLE>
SCWC-16-0000572

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

NIKILYN LOVE,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-16-0000572; CASE NO. 3DTA-16-00995)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Nikilyn Love’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on September 5, 2017, is

hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 27, 2017.

/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-16-0000572

27-OCT-2017

08:12 AM
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.                  

###### Millennium Challenge Corporation

          - [MCC FR 07-10] 

# Agency:

Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

# Time and Date:

2 p.m. to 4 p.m., Wednesday, September 12, 2007. 

# Place:

Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520. 

# For Further Information Contact:

                        Information on the meeting may be obtained from Suzi M. Morris via e-mail at                         *Board@mcc.gov*                         or by telephone at (202) 521-3600.                     

# Status:

Meeting will be closed to the public. 

# Matters To Be Considered:

                        The Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (“MCC”) will hold a meeting to initiate the FY 2008 country selection process by identifying countries that will be candidates for Millennium Challenge Account (“MCA”) assistance in FY 2008 based on the per capita income and other requirements of Section 606(a) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-199 (Division D)) (the “Act”); to consider proposed Millennium Challenge Account (“MCA”) Compacts under the provisions of Section 605(a) of the Millennium Challenge Act, codified at 22 U.S.C. 7704(a); and to consider MCC Threshold Program submissions for FY 2007 MCA assistance under Section 616 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (the “Act”) codified at 22 U.S.C. 7715; and certain administrative                               ( print page 50701)                            matters, all which are expected to involve the discussion of classified information. The meeting will be closed to the public.                     

Dated: August 30, 2007. 

Henry Pitney, 

Vice President and General Counsel (Acting), Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 07-4333 Filed 8-30-07; 3:45 pm] 

BILLING CODE 9211-03-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHAWN KELLY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JON MENNEN, Sgt., 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-15697 

D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01880-JJT-ESW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Shawn Kelly appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Byrd v. Maricopa 

County Bd. of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal of an 

* 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

FEB 24 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-15697 

action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)); Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 568, 574 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (dismissal of an action as time-barred). We vacate and remand.

The district court concluded that Kelly’s action was time-barred because 

Kelly did not file it within the applicable statute of limitations. However, Kelly 

alleged in his second amended complaint that he was unable to file timely because 

he was prevented from accessing necessary legal files, despite his diligence in 

pursuing them. The district court failed to consider whether Kelly sufficiently 

alleged a basis for equitable tolling or whether he could amend to do so. See Soto 

v. Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 871 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Federal courts in § 1983 actions 

apply the state statute of limitations from personal-injury claims and borrow the 

state’s tolling rules.”); Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 

1206-07 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that complaints may be dismissed as timebarred only if “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts 

that would establish the timeliness of the claim” and the factual and legal issues are 

clear enough to allow the court to “determine with certainty whether the [equitable 

tolling] doctrine could be successfully invoked”); Nolde v. Frankie, 964 P.2d 477, 

480 (Ariz. 1998) (en banc) (explaining that Arizona recognizes equitable 

exceptions to statutes of limitations “when necessary to prevent injustice”). 

We therefore vacate and remand for the district court to consider, in the first 

instance, whether the allegations in Kelly’s second amended complaint are 
3 22-15697 

sufficient to invoke equitable tolling, and if not, whether Kelly should be granted

further leave to amend. 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

VACATED and REMANDED.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Research Resources Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         October 25, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Democracy I, 6701 Democracy Blvd., 1064, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Guo Zhang, PhD, MD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Center for Research Resources, or National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., 1 Democracy Plaza Room 1064, MSC 4874, Bethesda, MD 20892-4874, 301-435-0812,                         *zhanggu@mail.nih.gov*.                     

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.371, Biomedical Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, 93.306, 93.333, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 21, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-4222  Filed 8-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 238

To provide for the protection of wild horses within the Ozark National

Scenic Riverways and prohibit the removal of such horses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. EMERSON (for himself, Mr. SKELTON, and Mr. HANCOCK) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To provide for the protection of wild horses within the Ozark

National Scenic Riverways and prohibit the removal of

such horses.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ozark Wild Horses

5 Protection Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF FREE-ROAMING HORSES.

7 The first section of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to pro8 vide for the establishment of the Ozark National Scenic

9 Riverways in the State of Missouri, and for other pur10 poses’’, approved August 27, 1964 (78 Stat. 608; 16
2

•HR 238 IH

1 U.S.C. 460m), is amended in the first sentence by insert2 ing ‘‘protection and preservation of free-roaming horses,’’

3 after ‘‘wildlife,’’.

4 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF REMOVAL OF HORSES.

5 Section 5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for

6 the establishment of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways

7 in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes’’, ap8 proved August 27, 1964 (78 Stat. 609; 16 U.S.C. 460m–

9 4), is amended by adding the following new subsection at

10 the end:

11 ‘‘(c) The Secretary may not remove, or allow or assist

12 in the removal of, any free-roaming horse from Federal

13 lands within the boundaries of the Ozark National Scenic

14 Riverways, except in the case of medical emergency or nat15 ural disaster.’’.

Æ
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, Joseph C. Christenson, certify that:

 

1)         I have reviewed this Form 10-QSBof PPT Vision, Inc.

 

2)         Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3)         Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4)         The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)     Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)    Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)     Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5)         The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)     All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b)    Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  March 13,2008

 
|   | /s/ Joseph C. Christenson                     |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   | Joseph C. Christenson                         |   |
|   | President, Chief Executive  Officer and Chief |
|   | Financial Officer                             |

 

----
From: bjp1@cox.net [mailto:bjp1@cox.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 12:57 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

BJ Peters 

2913 Majestic View Walk 

Lexington, KY 40511
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

#### **CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Joseph C. Christenson, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of PPTVision, Inc.

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

Date:  June 3, 2005

 
| /s/ Joseph C. Christenson                                                              |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Joseph C. Christenson, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
99-186.

#### Menton v. Money.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
-----Original Message----- 

From: ibjoeyd@gmail.com [mailto:ibjoeyd@gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:17 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 27, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone and 

Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (RIN 

1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from charging 

higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for mental 

health treatment than they would for other physical health care. Thank you 

for ensuring that mental health care and physical health care coverage are 

included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Joe D'Armiento 

150 Haight Street #404 

San Francisco, CA 94102
#### § 23.49 What is the base for a recipient's goal for car rentals?

Except in the case where you use the alternative goal approach of § 23.51(c)(5)(ii), the base for your goal is the total gross receipts of car rental operations at your airport. You do not include gross receipts of other concessions in this base.