alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 90 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8977]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-431-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

May 4, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 1, 2007, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin) tendered for filing as part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff 
sheets, to become effective June 1, 2007:

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 247
Original Sheet No. 247A
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 323

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone 
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on 
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before 
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2e4e7f0e1edcccecbccc7f1d7d2d2cdd0d6e2c4c7d0c18cc5cdd4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3f5f6e1f0fcdddfdaddd6e0c6c3c3dcc1c7f3d5d6c1d09dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8977 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 316 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 316

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, March 
13, 2008, or Friday, March 14, 2008, on a motion offered pursuant to 
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 
stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, March 31, 2008, or until the 
time of any reassembly pursuant to

              

 section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and 
that when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, 
March 13, 2008, through Friday, March 28, 2008, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, March 
31, 2008, or such other time on that day as may be specified in the 
motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly 
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 
first.
    Sec. 2.  The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority 
Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and the 
Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place and time as they may 
designate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 12, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 316

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

        Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of 
 Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7276** 

EDWARD W. JEFFERSON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner; J. PHILLIP MORGAN, Warden , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the Unit ed States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 02536

- JFM )

Submitted : January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Edward W. Jefferson , Appellant Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Edward W. Jefferson , a state prisoner **,** seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2241 ( West 200 6 & Supp. 2011 ) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district cou rt’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demons trate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jefferson has n ot made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument woul d not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 60295

**Christopher Maurice McDowell,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Carlton W. Reeves,**

Defendant

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:21

- cv

- 00722

Before **Jones, Haynes** , and **Oldham** , Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
After carefully reviewing the record and the brief filed by Christopher Maurice McDowell, we conclude that no non

- frivolous issue is presented for
review. See **5th Cir. R. 42.2** . Appeal **DISMISSED**

.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 28, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-60295 Document: 00516557525 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2022
Case No. 14,668.

#### UNITED STATES v. BROWN.

[4 McLean, 378.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

June Term, 1848.

Trespass — Cutting Timber — Justificatiox—Pre-emption Right.

At law.

Mr. Norvell, U. S. Dist. Atty.

Mr. Seaman, for defendant.

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

This was an action of trespass, for cutting timber upon the public lands. On the part of the defendant, it was proved that he claimed the land, under the act of congress of the 4th of September, 1841 [5 Stat. 453]. It was objected, by the district attorney, that a pre-emption right under that act can not be shown by parol. Last May, it was proved that defendant admitted that he had not paid for the land. THE COURT instructed the jury that the defense of the defendant could only be sustained by his showing that he had taken some steps to secure his pre-emptive right set up. That short of this, he could plead no justification or excuse for the trespass charged. ■

Verdict for plaintiff. Judgment.
No. 48797.

#### Protest 66944-K of R. Haber Linen Import Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The contention of the plaintiff is based solely upon the construction to be given the proviso to paragraph 1529 (b) when read in connection with the said trade agreement, and that the additional duty of 1 cent each upon the handkerchiefs is not applicable to the handkerchiefs herein because they were assessed under the said trade agreement (T. D. 48093) which does not contain any language levying additional duty of 1 cent each upon handkerchiefs if made with hand-rolled or handmade hems. At the trial counsel for the respective parties agreed that the merchandise consists of handkerchiefs composed wholly or-ín chief value of cotton and that they are not hand embroidered, nor do they contain handmade lace, but do have a rolled hem. It was noted that schedule II of said agreement does not enumerate or describe therein handkerchiefs “made-with hand-rolled or handmade hems,” and that there is, therefore, no prohibition in said article II of said agreement against the imposition of the additional duty of 1 cent each upon handkerchiefs made with hand-rolled or handmade hems, or,, in other words, article II specifically limits the prohibition against any other or higher duty than therein specified to those articles enumerated or described in schedule II. Since the handkerchiefs in this case are not enumerated or described in schedule II, the language of said article II cannot be construed as a prohibition against the assessment of 1 cent additional upon these handkerchiefs. The claim of the plaintiff was therefore overruled.
DM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0382

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

QUINCY SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including June 19, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 14 2021

05/14/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0382
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Your right to federal records.**
 
1992 | 1996| 2009 | �2002 |� 2003 | 2004 | 2009 | 2011
 
SuDoc Number:GS 1.2:F 31/2/
Item Number:0559 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001083271
 
October 19, 2018
1 Filed 7/3/14 P. v. Waiton CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. THOMAS DAVID WAITON, Defendant and Appellant. A139498

(Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR628630, SCR 632438)

Thomas David Waiton appe als from an order deeming him incompetent to stand trial on making criminal threat s and drug charges, committing him to a state hospital, and authorizing the facility to ad minister antipsychotic medication to him involuntarily. He

contends the trial cour t erred in denying his Marsden 1 motion without a hearing, where the request to substitute counsel was made af ter the court found him incompetent to stand trial but before it held the involuntary medi cation and placement hearing. The orders were entered in June and July 2013. In June 2014, after the a ppeal was fully briefed, appe llate counsel wrote to the court, reporting he had learne d that appellant had been decl ared competent and entered no contest pleas to two counts, that the trial c ourt suspended imposition of sentence, and that appellant was released from custody. The issu es raised by the appeal are therefore moot, and we lack jurisdiction to consider them further. ( Giles v. Horn (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 206, 226-227; People v. Lindsey (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 742, 743-744.)

1 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Ca l.3d 118.2 DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed as moot.

_ ____________ ____________ REARDON, ACTING P. J.

We concur:

_____________ ____________ RIVERA, J.

_____________ ____________ HUMES, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS              6-MOS               YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         DEC-31-1997        DEC-31-1997        DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>              JUN-30-1997        JUN-30-1997        DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                            0            1,441,872          1,394,990
<SECURITIES>                      0                    0                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                     0                    0                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                      0                    0                  0
<INVENTORY>                       0                    0                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  0            2,666,200          2,556,685
<PP&E>                            0                    0                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                    0                    0                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    0            2,666,200          2,556,685
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             0               16,351             30,653
<BONDS>                           0                    0                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0                    0                  0
<PREFERRED>                       0                    0                  0
<COMMON>                          0                    0                  0
<OTHER-SE>                        0            2,649,849          2,526,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      0            2,666,200          2,556,685
<SALES>                           0                    0                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             14,784               28,873                  0
<CGS>                             0                    0                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     0                    0                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             36,477               55,149                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0                    0                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                0                    0                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>              49,943              123,817                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                 49,943              123,817                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               0                    0                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                    0                    0                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0                    0                  0
<CHANGES>                         0                    0                  0
<NET-INCOME>                 49,943              123,817                  0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     0                    0                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                     0                    0                  0
        

</TABLE>
| Ø | Contract      number: 2009Shenyinsun Daibuzi001; |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Changing      the interest rate of the loan under the Loan Agreement from 5.31% to      4.779%. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | No      amendment to the other clauses of the Loan  Agreement. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | In      case of any difference between the Loan Agreement and this Supplemental      Agreement, the Supplemental Agreement shall  prevail. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | This      Supplemental Agreement becomes effective since it is signed and      stamped. |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | This      Supplemental Agreement has two originals. Each of the Company and the      Creditor has one original, which has the same  effect. |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bao Linh PHAM, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-30154.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Gary Y. Sussman, USPO—Office of the U.S. Attorney Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff— Appellee.

Ruben L. Iniguez, Esq., FPDOR—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant—Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Bao Linh Pham appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release for an underlying guilty plea conviction for bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pham contends that the district court violated his due process rights at the revocation of supervised release hearing by not asking him personally whether he admitted the alleged violation. We review for plain error, *United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558, 563 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc), and we reject the contention. “[W]e have repeatedly held that criminal defendants are bound by the admissions of fact made by their counsel in their presence and with their authority.” *United States v. Her*
      *45
      *nandez-Hernandez,*387 F.3d 799, 806 (9th Cir.2004), *vacated on other grounds by Ramos-Birrueta v. United States,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1427, 161 L.Ed.2d 185 (2005). Further, proceedings to revoke supervised release need not comply with the procedural protections constitutionally guaranteed for criminal prosecutions. *See United States v. Soto-Olivas,*44 F.3d 788, 792 (9th Cir.1995); *see also United States v. Segal,*549 F.2d 1293, 1300 (9th Cir.1977) (holding that the making of admissions at a probation revocation proceeding is not the equivalent of a guilty plea, functional or otherwise, and that, consequently, the protections of Rule 11 do not apply).

Pham also contends that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his supervised release. We reject this contention because there was evidence that Pham failed to report to the probation office within 72 hours of his release from custody. *See United States v. Schmidt,*99 F.3d 315, 320 (9th Cir.1996), *overruled on other grounds by United States v. Palomba,*182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**S**
**henzhen      Branch, Bank of China**

**Loan      Certificate **

| Applicant                         | Shenzhen                BAK Battery Co., Ltd         | ID                card of the Applicant |          |
|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|---------------|
| Currency                          | RMB                                                  | Amount                                  | 40,000,000.00 |
| Loan                Term          | From                March 27, 2008 to March 27, 2009 |
| Annual                rate        | 8.217%                                               |                                    |          |
| Reference                Contract | 08851225                                             | Loan                type                |          |
| Stamp                of Applicant |                                                 |                                    |
| Approved                by        |                                                 | Stamp                                   |          |

----
No. 54280.

#### Gallagher & Ascher Co. *v.*United States,

protests 113515-K/61, etc. (Chicago).

*445Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of unsweetened cocoa similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Gallagher & Ascher Co.*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 1, C. D. 1199), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 50679.

#### Protests 100946-K, etc., of D. & A. Sclafani et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of cheese similar in all material respects either to the Romano and Sprinz cheese the subject 'of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) or to the Gouda cheese involved in. Abstract 48269. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited, it was held that an allowance of 2)4 percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese by the collector in computing the duty thereon to compensate for the weight of the inedible coverings on the outside of the cheese. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Case No. 14,001.

#### THORNTON v. WASHINGTON.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 212.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1827.

Justice of Peace — Appeal — District of Columbia.

No appeal lies from the judgment of a justice of the peace, unless the “debt or demand” exceed the sum of five dollars.

Appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace for a penalty of five dollars, for not registering a dog, according to the bylaw of the corporation of Washington, of 1st of April, 1S20. Burch, Dig. p. 83, § 20.

The appeal was dismissed by

THE COURT

without costs, (nem. con.) no appeal being given by the seventh section of the act of congress [2 Stat. 239], unless “the debt or demand doth exceed the sum of five dollars.”
No. 42032.

#### Protest 948153-G of Dr. H. B. Eisenstadt (Galveston).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

There was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff when the case was docketed for hearing. As there was no evidence in the papers that the collector erred in his assessment the protest was overruled.