alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES *v.*BUFFALO SAVINGS BANK.

No. 96.

Argued December 3, 1962.—

Decided January 7, 1963.

*John B. Jones, Jr.*argued the cause for the United States. On the briefs were *Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer, Stephen J. Poliak, Joseph Kovner*and *George F. Lynch.*

*John Horace Little*argued the cause and filed briefs for respondent.

*Laurens Williams*and *William Poole*filed a brief for the American Bar Association, as *auiicus curiae,*urging affirmance.

Per Curiam.

In 1946, respondent Buffalo Savings Bank made a loan secured by a real estate mortgage. The United States filed notice of a federal tax lien against the mortgagor’s property in 1953. Thereafter, in 1957 and 1958, liens for unpaid real estate taxes and other local assessments at*229tached to the property. The bank instituted foreclosure proceedings, naming the United States as a party. The trial court’s decree ordered the property sold and the payment of local real estate taxes and other assessments as part of the expenses of the sale prior to the satisfaction of the tax lien of the United States. The United States appealed and the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed, only to be reversed in turn by the New York Court of Appeals, which reinstated the trial court’s judgment on the ground that the federal tax lien attached only to the mortgagor’s interest in the surplus after the foreclosure sale and therefore was subordinate to the local taxes as “expenses of sale.” 11 N. Y. 2d 31, 181 N. E. 2d 413.

We must reverse the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals for failure to take proper account of *United States*v. *New Britain,*347 U. S. 81. That case rules this one, for there the Court quite clearly held that federal tax liens have priority over subsequently accruing liens for local real estate taxes, even though the burden of the local taxes in the event of a shortage would fall upon the mortgagee whose claim under state law is subordinate to local tax liens.

A similar argument based on the general character of the ■ federal tax lien was made and specifically rejected in *New Britain.*Moreover, the state may not avoid the priority rules of the federal tax lien by the formalistic device of characterizing subsequently accruing local liens as expenses of sale. Cf. *United States*v. *Gilbert Associates, Inc.,*345 U. S. 361. Finally, respondent’s reliance on *United States*v. *Brosnan,*363 U. S. 237, and *Crest Finance Co.*v. *United States,*368 U. S. 347, is misplaced. *Brosnan*was concerned with foreclosure procedures, not with priorities, and in connection with the latter subject relied *230upon *New Britain*among other cases. *Crest*is wholly inapposite here.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

*Reversed and remanded.*

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
#### Jennie E. Gardinier, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Bockes, J.;

Landon, J., not acting,
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 01017

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

01017\01017_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

01017\01017_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

01017\01017_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 01017\01017_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 01017\01017_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01017\01017_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01017\01017_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01017\01017_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01017\01017_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01017\Correspondence\01017 Response_032411 Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

x 01017\Correspondence\01017 Response_032411\01017_Email Correspondence_032411.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

x 01017\Correspondence\01017 Response_032411\Copy of COF_Part_A.xls Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

x 01017\Supporting Documents\COF ICR Flow Schematic Source Diagram August 2010.pptx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01017\Supporting Documents\COF Part D Block Diagrams.xlsx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01017\Supporting Documents\COF.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01017\Supporting Documents\DEA_Colbert Fossil Plant_Installation of Flue Gas Desulfuriz.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01017\Supporting Documents\FEA_Allen Fossil Plant Biogas Fuel Supplement Project.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01017\Supporting Documents\FEA_Colbert Fossil Plant_Construction of Skimmer Wall.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01017\Supporting Documents\FEA_Colbert Fossil Plant_Dry Fly Ash Facility and Dry Storag.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01017\Supporting Documents\FEA_Colbert Fossil Plant_Property Sale and Permanent Easemen.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01017\Supporting Documents\FEA_Colbert Fossil Plant_Units 1 through 5 Reduction Systems.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 64908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20352]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6470-000]


Winooski Hydroelectric Company; Notice of Authorization for 
Continued Project Operation

    The license for the Winooski 8 Hydroelectric Project No. 6470 was 
issued for a period ending July 31, 2023.
    Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the 
Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-
year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the terms and 
conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the 
project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other 
applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived 
the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) 
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth 
at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an 
application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to 
operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 
license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the 
Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project 
has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be 
required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations 
until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or 
otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 6470 is issued to 
Winooski Hydroelectric Company for a period effective August 1, 2023, 
through July 31, 2024, or until the issuance of a new license for the 
project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If 
issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on 
or before July 31, 2024, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 
CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is 
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the 
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that Winooski Hydroelectric Company is authorized to 
continue operation of Winooski 8 Hydroelectric Project under the terms 
and conditions of the prior license until the issuance of a new license 
for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes 
first.

    Dated: September 14, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20352 Filed 9-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
No. 245, Misc.

#### Roberts *v.*Texas.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1272 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       October 2, 2008.
Whereas Alice Mary Robertson was born on January 2, 1854, in the Tullahassee 
        Mission, Creek Nation, Indian Territory, now known as Tullahassee, 
        Oklahoma;
Whereas Alice Mary Robertson was an American educator, social worker, government 
        official, and politician;
Whereas Alice Mary Robertson was the 2nd woman to serve in Congress and the 1st 
        from the State of Oklahoma;
Whereas Alice Mary Robertson was a clerk in the Bureau of Indian Affairs from 
        1873 to 1879, later returning to Indian Territory and teaching in 
        Tullahassee and the Carlisle Indian Industrial School;
Whereas Alice Mary Robertson established the Nuyaka Mission, taught in Okmulgee, 
        Oklahoma, and was in charge of a Presbyterian boarding school for Native 
        American girls, now the University of Tulsa;
Whereas Alice Mary Robertson was appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt as 
        the 1st government supervisor of Creek Indian schools from 1900 to 1905, 
        and later the postmaster of Muskogee, Oklahoma, from 1905 to 1913;
Whereas Alice Mary Robertson's canteen service to the troops during World War I 
        later led to the formation of the Muskogee Chapter of the American Red 
        Cross;
Whereas Alice Mary Robertson was elected by the 2nd District of Oklahoma as a 
        Republican Representative to the 67th Congress, from 1921 to 1923, 
        serving on the Committee on Indian Affairs, the Committee on 
        Expenditures in the Interior Department, and the Committee on Woman 
        Suffrage;
Whereas Alice Mary Robertson helped secure the building of a veteran's hospital 
        in Muskogee, following the creation of the Veterans Bureau in 1921;
Whereas Alice Mary Robertson became the 1st woman to preside over the House of 
        Representatives on July 20, 1921, when she presided over a roll call 
        vote on S.J. Res. 34; and
Whereas Alice Mary Robertson was a devoted teacher for the Creek Nation and 
        helped the community through her translation of portions of the 
        Scriptures and texts: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes Alice Mary Robertson 
for her spirit of service and dedication to her country, and honors her as a 
great American in recognition of her contributions to the State of Oklahoma and 
nationwide in the House of Representatives.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cellcom I Corp. on Form 10-KSB for
the year ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jay H. Brown, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1. The Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


Date: December 26, 2006                 By: /s/ Jay H. Brown
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Jay H. Brown
                                            Chief Executive Officer


                                       21
From: wsg@dentistryforkids.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:51:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Warren Guy

Lufkin, TX 75904
From: rlvansoest@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:29:31 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rick VanSoest

Minneapolis, MN 55433
#### State of Nebraska et al., appellants, v. Farmers State Bank et al.: Charles Iams, Administrator, Intervener, appellee.

Filed July 7, 1921.

No. 21725.

Appeal: Law op the Case. A question once determined in the appellate court will not ordinarily he reexamined there on a second appeal, in the same case.

Appeal from the district court for Burt county: Charles A. Goss, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Clarence A. Davis, Attorney*General, and *J. A. Sing-ha/ws,*for appellants.

*John L. Webster, contra.*

Heard before Morrissey, C.J., Aldrich, Day, Dean, Flansburg, Letton and Rose, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This is a controversy over the distribution of the funds in the hands of the receiver of the insolvent Farmers State Bank of Decatur, Nebraska. It failed when it was indebted, among others, to Frank Iams in the sum of $12,000. He filed his claim as a depositor and demanded payment o-ut of the bank guaranty funds, but he was held to be a general creditor and not a depositor within the meaning of the state banking law. Payment out of the bank guaranty funds was not allowed. *Iams v. Farmers State Bank,*101 Neb. 778. Later Iams intervened in the proceeding to wind up the affairs of the insolvent bank, and demanded payment out of the funds derived from the assets in the hands of the receiver. The state of Nebraska, for the protection of the bank guaranty funds, and the Oakland State Bank, in behalf of itself and all other banks that contributed to the bank guaranty funds, pleaded that the funds in the hands of the receiver of the insolvent bank were insufficient to reimburse the bank guaranty funds paid to depositors and that the bank *388guaranty funds were entitled to a preference over the claim of lams, a general creditor. A fuller statement of the facts will be found in *State v. Farmers State Bank,*103 Neb. 194. The trial court found that the bank guaranty funds and the claim of lams were of equal rank, and on that basis prorated the funds in the hands of the receiver of the insolvent bank. The state of Nebraska and the Oakland State Bank have appealed.

Aré the bank guaranty funds, out of which the depositors of the insolvent bank were paid, entitled to priority over the claim of lams in the distribution of the funds in the hands of the receiver? This is the question presented by the appeal. In denying the preference in favor of the bank guaranty funds the trial court followed a ruling of this court on a former appeal in the same case. *State v. Farmers State Bank,*103 Neb. 194.

While this court’s ruling on the former appeal, which the trial court followed after the cause had been remanded for further proceedings, appears to be erroneous when here and now read in connection with the statute construed, it is the law of this case. A question once determined in the appellate court will not ordinarily be reexamined there on a second appeal in the same case.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64520-64521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20235]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of four entities that have been 
placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons 
List (SDN List) whose property and interests in property have been 
blocked pending investigation. All property and interests in property 
subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these entities are blocked pending 
investigation, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging 
in transactions with them.

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for applicable date(s).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Bradley Smith, Director, tel.: 
202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-
2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant 
Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant 
Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website (www.treasury.gov/ofac).

Notice of OFAC Actions

    On September 14, 2023, pursuant to section 203 of the International 
Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1702, Executive Order 14024 of 
April 15, 2021, ``Blocking Property With Respect to Specified Harmful 
Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation,'' 86 FR 20249, 
3 CFR, 2021 Comp., p. 542 (Apr. 15, 2021), and section 587.201 of the 
Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 
587 (the ``Regulations''), OFAC blocked pending investigation the 
property and interests in property of the following four entities whose 
names will be placed on the SDN List with the tag [BPI-RUSSIA-EO14024] 
in accordance with Note 2 to Sec.  587.201 of the Regulations.
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[[Page 64521]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE23.104


    Dated: September 14, 2023.
Bradley T. Smith,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the 
Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2023-20235 Filed 9-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
From: dperky2@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:33:17 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Charles R. Perkins

Holland, MI 49423