alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21315]



[[Page 43322]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3647-000]


Idaho Power Company; Notice of Filing

August 7, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 16, 1997, Idaho Power Company (IPC) 
tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
Service Agreements under Idaho Power Company's FERC Electric Tariff No. 
6, Market Rate Power Sales Tariff, between Idaho Power Company and 
Truckee Donner Public Utility District, Oregon Trail Electric Consumers 
Cooperative, and Energy Services, Inc.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before August 20, 1997. 
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 motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21315 Filed 8-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Rex NELSON v. John D. NEWMAN, Jr.

No. 11328.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 13, 1977.

Rehearing Denied July 11, 1977.

Thomas H. Benton of Benton, Benton & Benton, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff.

R. Bradley Lewis of Talley, Anthony, Hughes & Knight, Bogalusa, for defendant.

Before LANDRY, EDWARDS and COLE, JJ.

EDWARDS, Judge.

This is a suit on a promissory note brought by Rex Nelson against John D. Newman, Jr. After trial on the merits, judgment was signed on October 8, 1976 in favor of Newman dismissing plaintiff’s suit. From this judgment, plaintiff has appealed. We *ex proprio motu*notice that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s appeal due to his failure to file timely an appeal bond.

As stated above, judgment was signed on October 8, 1976. Notice of the judgment was mailed to counsel for both parties on Monday October 18, 1976, as evidenced by the clerk’s certificate filed in the record. No application for a new trial was filed.

Plaintiff obtained an order granting a devolutive appeal on November 3, 1976, which order was subsequently amehded on December 14, 1976, in order to set the amount of the appeal bond. The $250.00 appeal bond was not filed until January 3, 1977, as evidenced by the clerk’s “Certificate of Deposit of Cash Bond.”

The delay for taking and perfecting a devolutive appeal is sixty (60) days from the expiration of the delays for applying for a new trial, as provided by LSA-C.C.P. art. 1974, if no application for a new trial is filed timely. LSA-C.C.P. art. 2087, as amended by Acts 1976, No. 201 § 1 (effective October 1, 1976).

The delay for applying for a new trial is seven (7) days, exclusive of legal holidays. This delay commences to run on the day after notice of judgment is mailed. LSA-C.C.P. art. 1974.

*1213Accordingly, the delay for applying for a new trial commenced on Tuesday, October 19, 1976, and expired on Wednesday, October 27, 1976. The delay for perfecting a devolutive appeal commenced on October 28, 1976 and expired on Monday, December 27, 1976.1 The appeal bond filed on January 3, 1977, was therefore untimely.

Since no appeal bond was filed timely, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. LSA-C.C.P. art. 2088. Therefore, we *ex proprio mota*dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

1

. The sixty day period elapsed on Sunday, December 26, 1976, but because this was a legal holiday the appellant had until the end of the next non-holiday to perfect his appeal.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1290 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1290

      To appropriate $1,975,183,000 for medical care for veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 23, 2005

  Mrs. Murray introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To appropriate $1,975,183,000 for medical care for veterans.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sum 
is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, for the Department of Veterans Affairs for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2005, namely:

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                     Veterans Health Administration

                            Medical Services

    For necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by law, 
outpatient and inpatient care and treatment to beneficiaries of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs and veterans as described in paragraphs 
(1) through (8) of section 1705(a) of title 38, United States Code, 
including care and treatment in facilities not under the jurisdiction 
of the department and including medical supplies and equipment and 
salaries and expenses of health-care employees hired under title 38, 
United States Code, and to aid State homes as authorized under section 
1741 of title 38, United States Code; $1,975,183,000 plus 
reimbursements: Provided, That of the amount under this heading, 
$610,183,000 shall be available to address the needs of servicemembers 
deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom; 
Provided further, That of the amount under this heading, $840,000,000 
shall be available, in equal amounts of $40,000,000, for each Veterans 
Integrated Service Network (VISN) to meet current and pending care and 
treatment requirements: Provided further, That of the amount under this 
heading, $525,000,000 shall be available for mental health care and 
treatment, including increased funding for centers for the provision of 
readjustment counseling and related mental health services under 
section 1712A of title 38, United States Code (commonly referred to as 
``Vet Centers''), increased funding for post traumatic stress disorder 
(PTSD) programs, funding for the provision of primary care 
consultations for mental health, funding for the provision of mental 
health counseling in Community Based Outreach Centers (CBOCs), and 
funding to facilitate the provision of mental health services by 
Department of Veterans Affairs facilities that do not currently provide 
such services: Provided further, That the amount under this heading 
shall remain available until expended.
                                 <all>
```
#### Peter F. SOPP, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Respondent.

No. 77-352.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 13, 1977.

*175Thomas Boroughs, Winter Park, for petitioner.

David Linn, Tallahassee, for respondent.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Petitioner seeks review of an Order by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board suspending his swimming pool contractor’s registration. We deny certiorari.

The issue is whether the Board can suspend the registration of an unregistered contractor whose application for registration was pending approval at the time the contractor violated the law. We answer in the affirmative.

The facts are that Petitioner was registered as a contractor until June 30 when his registration expired. On July 25 he requested renewal of his registration which renewal was granted on December 10. In October and November Petitioner violated Section 468.112(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1975), by combining with a contractor unqualified to obtain permits in Orange County through use of Petitioner’s registration. Section 468.112(6), Florida Statutes (1975), provides:

> “The lapse or suspension of a certificate or registration by operation of law or by order of the Board or a court, or its voluntary surrender by a certificate holder or registrant does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction to investigate or act in disciplinary proceedings against the certificate holder or registrant.”

Implicit in this Statute is the authority of the Board to suspend the registration of one who has pending a renewal of a registration. This is made especially true because the renewal is a mandatory, ministerial, act by the Board according to Section 468.-108(2), Florida Statutes (1975). When a prior registrant complies with this Statute the Board must issue the renewed registration. cf. *Vocelle*v. *Riddell,*119 So.2d 809 (Fla.2d DCA 1960).

Certiorari DENIED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and LETTS, J., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6615** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v.
BRYANT KELLY PRIDE , a/k/a Pride , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Abingdon
. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00024

- JPJ

- 2; 1:11

- cv - 80408

- JPJ

- RSB )

Submitted : November 2 , 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012

Before WILKINSON , KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges
.
Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
. Bryant Kelly Pride , Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst , Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon , Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bryant Kelly Pride seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(c)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (6) as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appeal ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’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 demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record a nd conclude that Pride has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.3 Additionally, we construe Pride’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unava ilable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255(h) (West Supp. 2012). Pride ’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispens e with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.16(b)


    Schedule of Secured Convertible Notes (demand) issued by NCT Group, Inc.
            to Carole Salkind and outstanding as of February 28, 2006



                                                                    Conversion
      Issue Date         Due Date*(a)           Principal            Price(b)
      ----------         ------------      -----------------         --------
       12/22/05           06/22/06           $    375,000            $0.0100
       01/11/06           07/11/06                375,000            $0.0100
       01/24/06           07/24/06                375,000            $0.0100
       02/13/06           08/13/06                375,000            $0.0100
       02/27/06           08/27/06                850,000            $0.0100

                                           -----------------
                                             $  2,350,000
                                           =================


(a)  Note is payable upon the earlier of demand or the due date
(b)  Note  conversion  price will be the  greater  of: (i) the lowest  last sale
     price of NCT's common stock  during the  five-day  period  comprised of the
     date of the note, date preceding and three dates following; or (ii) the par
     value of NCT's common stock on the date the conversion  notice is delivered
     to NCT.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350**

The undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|  | (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PracticeWorks, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                              |   |   |                                            |
|-----------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
| Dated:  August 13, 2003 |   |   | /s/ JAMES K. PRICE                              |
|                              |   |   |                                                 |
|                              |   |   | **James K. Price****Chief Executive Officer**   |
|                              |   |   |                                            |
| Dated:  August 13, 2003 |   |   | /s/ JAMES A. COCHRAN                            |
|                              |   |   |                                                 |
|                              |   |   | **James A. Cochran****Chief Financial Officer** |
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1194 

To direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish guidelines and 

procedures for tracking, controlling, and accounting for individual spent 

fuel rods and segments. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 8, 2005 

Mr. OBAMA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish 

guidelines and procedures for tracking, controlling, and 

accounting for individual spent fuel rods and segments. 

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 ‘‘Spent Nuclear Fuel 

5 Tracking and Accountability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SPENT FUEL RODS. 

7 (a) GUIDELINES.—Not later than 260 days after the 

8 date of enactment of this Act, the Nuclear Regulatory 

9 Commission shall establish— 
2 

•S 1194 IS

1 (1) specific and uniform guidelines for tracking, 

2 controlling, and accounting for individual spent fuel 

3 rods or segments at nuclear power plants, including 

4 procedures for conducting physical inventories; and 

5 (2) uniform inspection procedures to verify any 

6 action taken by a nuclear power plant to implement 

7 those guidelines. 

8 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

9 of enactment of this Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commis10 sion shall submit to Congress a report describing the 

11 progress of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in estab12 lishing the guidelines under subsection (a). 

Æ
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Quenton N. BROWN v. Leon A. PICOU, Jr., District Attorney.

No. 60365.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 27, 1977.

In re: Quenton N. Brown applying for Remedial Writs.

Writs denied.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00424-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.K.A., A CHILD

From the 74th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-2340-3

ORDER

This appeal was referred to mediation on January 9, 2014. The parties were 

ordered to confer and attempt to agree upon a mediator. We have received notice that 

the parties have been unable to agree upon a mediator. Accordingly, the Court assigns 

R.B. Pool as the mediator for this proceeding. His address and contact number is as 

follows:

408 West Nash

Terrell, Texas 75160

(972) 524-7585

All other provisions of the order referring the appeal to mediation, dated January 

9, 2014, remain in effect, including that the mediation must occur within thirty days 
In the Interest of A.K.A., a Child Page 2

after the date of this Order assigning a mediator.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Mediator assigned

Order issued and filed February 6, 2014
#### Harold Dale WHEELER v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 49547.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 27, 1977.

Bullard, Campbell & Gee, Robert W. Gee, Vicksburg, for appellant.

A. P. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Karen Gil-foy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before INZER, P. J., SUGG and LEE, JJ., and WILLIAM R. LAMB, Commissioner.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Warren County; Ben Guider, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, P. J., and SMITH, ROBERTSON, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., concur.

GILLESPIE, C. J., took no part.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MATTHEW CATE, 

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT No. 10-72977 COURT FOR THE NORTHERN 

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE, ORDER

Respondent,

MICHAEL ANGELO MORALES and

ALBERT GREENWOOD BROWN,

Real Parties in Interest. 

Filed September 29, 2010

Before: Andrew J. Kleinfeld, M. Margaret McKeown, and

Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The State’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Petition for

Writ of Mandamus is granted.

16765
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. v. United States

No. 8115.

Entry No. 822035/1.

(Decided May 21, 1952)

*Sharretts, Hillis & Paley (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the earthenware articles covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated on schedule *“A”*hereto attached and made part hereof, at which such or. similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was in each instance the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases and that there is no foreign value.

> *654IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that this appeal to reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware articles here involved, and that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Insofar as the appeal, relates to all other merchandise it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Appellant, v. The LAKELAND LEDGER PUBLISHING COMPANY, publisher of The Ledger and Jeffrey J. Bairstow, Appellees.

No. 97-05034.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 22, 1998.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 4, 1998.

*205Carri S. Leininger of Williams & Leininger, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.

David S. Bralow, Stacy D. Blank, and Susan Tillotson Mills of Holland & Knight, LLP, Tampa, for Appellees.

FULMER, Judge.

This appeal arises out of the refusal by Prison Health Services, Inc., (“PHS”) to produce records in response to a public records request made by the Lakeland Ledger Publishing Company. The records sought pertained to a settlement agreement reached to resolve litigation resulting from the treatment of an inmate. We affirm the trial court’s order directing PHS to produce the requested public records.

PHS entered into a contract with the Sheriff of Polk County (“Sheriff’) to “provide total health care services for the inmates/detainees (including federal and state prisoners) housed within the county correctional system facilities.” In a detailed order, the trial court determined that PHS undertook to act on behalf of the Sheriff by providing these medical services and, therefore, “all of its records that would normally be subject to the Public Records Act if in the possession of the public agency are likewise covered by that law, even though in the possession of PHS, a private corporation.” *See*Art. I, § 24, Fla. Const.; § 119.01, Fla. Stat. (1995); *Stanfield v. Salvation Army,*695 So.2d 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); *News-Journal Corp. v. Memorial Hosp.-West Volusia, Inc.,*695 So.2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA), *rev. granted,*700 So.2d 686 (Fla.1997). The trial court further found that, in its contract with the Sheriff, “PHS acknowledged familiarity with the Florida Public Records law and agreed to comply with the same unless such records were specifically exempted.”

Both the record and the law support the trial court’s order.

Affirmed.

FRANK, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., concur.
Information regarding Named Executive Officer Salary and Bonus Arrangements.



 EXHIBIT 10.9 
 Information Regarding Named Executive Officer Salary and Bonus Arrangements 
 The Compensation and
Benefits Committee of the Board of Directors of First Data Corporation (the “Company”) approved: (i) an increase in the base salary for Kimberly S. Patmore, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, from
$575,000 to $600,000 effective October 1, 2007; and (ii) 2008 bonus targets for Edward A. Labry III, Senior Executive Vice President of the Company, in the amount of $937,500, and for Kimberly S. Patmore, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, in the amount of $600,000.