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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

      ( print page 69231)    
                    Notice is hereby given that, on July 19, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Bytecode Alliance Foundation 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, NGINX, Inc., San Francisco, CA, has been added 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 Bytecode Alliance Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On April 20, 2022, Bytecode Alliance Foundation 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 May 13, 2022 (87 FR 29379).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 12, 2023. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 13, 2023 (88 FR 38532).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2023-22224 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Case No. 12,943.

#### In re SLICHTER.

[2 N. B. R. 336 (Quarto, 107).] 1

District Court, D. Minnesota.

1869.

Husband and Wife — Wife Engaged in Trade— Debts — State Statute.

A feme covert engaging in trade must do so in accordance with the statute of the state. Not having done so, and being incapacitated to make contracts, she may avaii herself of her coverture to defeat the debt which is the basis of bankruptcy proceedings.

[Cited in note to In re Goodman, Case No. 5,540.]

*324The testimony showed that David P. Slichter and Catharine H. Slichter, his mother, a feme covert, were trading under the name of Slichter & Son.

1

 [Reprinted by permission.]

NELSON, District Judge,

said: That married women in this state had been relieved of many of the disabilities of coverture in regard to the use, enjoyment, and disposal of their property acquired as provided in the statutes; but that the law still imposed many restrictions upon their actions in regard to their separate property. That Mrs. Slichter, being a feme covert, could make no contract in the course of the business and trade of Slichter & Son, legal and binding upon her, unless authorized to engage in business by the laws of Minnesota. That under section 5, p. 500, Eev. St. Minn., a married woman could engage in trade, in her own name, so as to be bound by contracts entered into by her in the course of her trade, only when her husband abandons her, or neglects to make adequate provision for her maintenance or that of his family. In such a case license can be obtained from a judge of probate to trade, and all contracts made in the course of her business are valid and binding upon her as if she was sole; the issues and profits are held by her free from the control or interference of her husband or his creditors: and the husband is not liable for any indebtedness incurred in the course of her business. There being no evidence that Mrs. Slichter was engaged in business by virtue of any authority conferred by the statute, she could avail herself of her coverture to defeat the debt which was the basis of bankruptcy proceedings.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

APRYL J. BEACH,

Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5823

INITIAL ORDER RE:

ALLEGATIONS OF

VIOLATION OF

CONDITIONS OF

SUPERVISION

THIS MATTER comes on for an initial hearing on the Petition of the United States Pretrial

Services Office alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision by consuming

alcohol on or about August 4, 2006.

The plaintiff appears through Assistant United States Attorney, KENT LIEU;

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, THOMAS CAMPBELL.

The defendant was advised of the allegation, of her right to a hearing, and that the maximum

consequence if found to be in violation was detention for violating the condition of her Appearance

Bond until her sentencing date. Thereafter the defendant freely and voluntarily admitted the violation

as alleged.

The court schedules the matter for diposition before the HONORABLE KAREN L.

STROMBOM, on the date and time set forth below:

Date of hearing: AUGUST 15, 2006

Time of hearing: 1:30 P.M.

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant be detained pending the dipsositon hearing above set forth,

to be delivered as ordered by the court for further proceedings.

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services

Office.

August 8, 2006.

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold ______________ J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05823-RBL Document 130 Filed 08/08/06 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00261-JLR Document 29 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 1

NO. 07-08-0471-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

MAY 14, 2009

______________________________

THELMA LEE WILEY, 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 110 DISTRICT COURT OF DICKENS COUNTY; TH

NO. 2350; HON. WILLIAM P. SMITH, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Anders Opinion

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J. and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

After a jury trial, Thelma Lee Wiley was found guilty of the offense of manslaughter

with a deadly weapon. Her punishment was assessed at twenty years confinement and

a fine of $10,000. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an

Anders brief. In that brief, he certifies that he diligently searched the record for arguable 1
Appellant also has a right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review from the opinion of this 2

court. 

2

error and found none. Along with his brief, he filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant

informing her of his conclusion and of her right to file a brief or response pro se. By letter 2

dated February 26, 2009, this Court also notified appellant of her right to file her own

response by March 30, 2009, if she so wished. Thereafter, appellant requested an

extension of the deadline, which extension the Court granted to April 29, 2009. To date,

we have received neither a response nor another request for an extension of time from

appellant. 

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed

various phases of the trial including 1) voir dire, 2) the evidence offered at the

guilt/innocence phase of trial, and 3) the evidence offered at the punishment phase of trial.

Counsel also discussed the proceedings and analyzed the evidence offered before

concluding that no reversible error existed. Thereafter, we reviewed the record to assess

the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error

pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Upon doing so, we

too decide that there exists no arguable error warranting appellate review. 

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn 

 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
From: d.c.salem@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:50:38 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,

Doyle Ratterree

Chickamauga, GA 30707
ORDER FOR EAJA FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES 

[C06-5123FDB] - 1

Halpern & Oliver, PLLC 

1800 Cooper Pt. Road SW, Bldg. 19 

Olympia, WA 98502 

(360) 753-8055 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 United States District Judge FRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

KENNETH TAYLOR CURRY, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CIVIL NO. C06-5123FDB 

ORDER FOR EAJA FEES, COSTS AND 

EXPENSES 

THIS MATTER having come on regularly before the undersigned upon by Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Award EAJA Fees, Costs, and Expenses, the Defendant not opposing said motion, and 

the Court agreeing that EAJA fees, costs, and expenses should be awarded, good cause having 

been shown, now, therefore, it is hereby 

// 

// 

// 

Case 3:06-cv-05123-FDB Document 19 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 2
ORDER FOR EAJA FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES 

[C06-5123FDB] - 2

Halpern & Oliver, PLLC 

1800 Cooper Pt. Road SW, Bldg. 19 

Olympia, WA 98502 

(360) 753-8055 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 ORDERED that Plaintiff’s attorney Amy M. Gilbrough is hereby awarded EAJA fees of 

$3,934.50 and expenses of $63.31 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2412 and costs of $74.05 as set out at 

28 U.S.C. §1920, payable from the Judgment Fund pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §1304. 

 DATED this 27th day of November, 2006. 

 /S/ FRANKLIN D BURGESS 

 FRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

 United States District Judge 

Presented by: 

S/AMY M. GILBROUGH____________ 

AMY M. GILBROUGH, 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 3:06-cv-05123-FDB Document 19 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Charles D. REACH, Jr., Appellant, v. ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., Appellee.

No. 00-3493.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 10, 2001.

Decided June 14, 2001.

Before LOKEN, Circuit Judge, GOLDBERG1 and BOGUE,2 District Judges.3

1

. The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Senior Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

2

. The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, Senior United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

3

. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(b), the Chief Judge certified the existence of a judicial emergency necessitating the designation of a panel consisting of fewer than two members of the Court of Appeals.

PER CURIAM.

Charles D. Reach, Jr. was terminated as part of a reduction-in-force from his employment with AlliedSignal, Inc. Reach al*446leged he was terminated because he took leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The district court concluded that his disability was not the determining factor in his termination and no causal connection existed between the leave and the termination.

After a careful examination of the record, this Court finds there was sufficient evidence to support summary judgment in favor of AlliedSignal. The district court, therefore, properly granted the motion for summary judgment as no material facts were in dispute. Under Eighth Circuit Rule 47B, no further commentary is warranted.

Accordingly, we affirm.
C:\Users\1096\OneDrive\FMCS\DOE RegNeg 2014\Term Sheet Road Map.twdx

Tuesday, September 09, 2014

Term Sheet

Road Map - "To Do

" Items as

determined on 9/9

Other discussions

Labels

Enforcment and compliance

Space/water heating

Window Types (Allowable)

For 9/9/2014

Presentation Navigant: Scope, template, sturcture, definitions for Term

Sheet

Presentation: Manny - IECC 2015 Inclusion/Exclusion/Discussion

Presentation E. Levy - Discussion on Solar heat gain/ multiple strawboys

For 9/22/2014

Affordability

When cost data becomes available (End of this week)

Climate Zones

Actual Performance Levels: For determined paths and product types

Paths to compliance

Term Sheet

Road Map - "To Do

" Items as

determined on 9/9
May 6, 1965

No. 69296.

#### Henley & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64/17371, etc.

Protests dismissed April 1, 1965.

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund III, L.P. (the  "Partnership")  for the quarter ended   December 31,
2005 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2003,  I,  Wilfred N.  Cooper,  Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner
of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  except to the extent
          that such  provisions  require the filing of an opinion of registiered
          public  accountants to accompany the  Partnership's  annual  financial
          statements; and

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




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
February 17, 2006
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Section 1350 Certification by the Chief Financial Officer**

          I, Michael Schradle, the chief financial officer of Micro Linear Corporation (the “Company”), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,

          (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 2, 2006 (the “Report”), complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

          (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| August 16,   2006 | /s/ Michael   W. Schradle |
|-------------------|---------------------------|
|              |                           |
|              | Michael W.   Schradle     |
|              | Chief   Financial Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet and the Statements of Revenue and Expenses and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such Report on Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         922,241
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,045,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,035,916
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,045,794
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,067
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,821
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (25,730)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (338,047)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000875296
<NAME> WINNERS ALL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          654,217
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     55,035
<COMMON>                                       144,717
<OTHER-SE>                                   (853,969)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               227,856
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (227,856)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (227,856)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (227,856)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7066** 

In R e: ANGELO GALLOWAY , Petitioner.

On Petition s for Writ s of Mandamus. ( 2:16

- cv - 00348

- MSD

- LRL )

Submitted : September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD , KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition s denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Angelo Galloway , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Angelo Galloway petitions for writ s of mandamus seeking order s directing the district court to hold a bond hearing, to grant him reasonable bail, and to rule on his complaint under Fed. R. App. P. 46. We conclude that Galloway is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U
. S
. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)
. Galloway’s petitions rely on factual and legal premises that have been rejecte d on numerous occasions in both the district court and this c ourt. Galloway may not use mandamus to relitigate these challenges to his criminal conviction and
sentence or as a substitute for appeal. See In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Further , Galloway fails to demonstrate a clear right to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition s for writ s of mandamus. We deny as moot Galloway’s motion to expedite decis ion. We dispense3 with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION S DENIED