alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26781]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory commission
[Docket No. RP98-10-000]

CNG Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

October 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 1, 1997, CNG Transmission Corporation 
(CNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective 
date of November 1, 1997:

Thirty-First Revised Sheet No. 32
Thirty-First Revised Sheet No. 33

    CNG states that the purpose of this filing is to submit CNG's 
quarterly revision of the Section 18.2.B. Surcharge, effective for the 
three-month period commencing November 1, 1997. The charge for the 
quarter ending October 31, 1997 has been $0.0094 per Dt, as authorized 
by Commission order dated July 22, 1997, in Docket No. RP97-412. CNG's 
proposed Section 18.2.B. surcharge for the next quarterly period is 
$0.0269 per Dt. The revised surcharge is designed to recover $218,125 
in Stranded Account No. 858 Costs, which CNG incurred for the period of 
June 1997, through August 1997.
    CNG states that copies of this letter of transmittal and enclosures 
are being mailed to CNG's customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street N.E., Washington, DC, 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
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 in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26781 Filed 10-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Raymond T. GREENE, Respondent.

No. 40313.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 16, 1970.

Patrick A. Podsaid, Coral Gables, and William E. Gladstone, Miami, for The Florida Bar.

Raymond T. Greene, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM:

We have for consideration in this cause in addition to the Referee’s Report, respondent’s Petition for Leave to Resign from The Florida Bar, together with a response thereto filed by The Florida Bar. The Bar supports the resignation petition, having found after investigation that the granting of the petition will not adversely affect the public interest, the purity of the courts or the public confidence in the courts, and that it will not hinder the administration of justice.

Wherefore, upon consideration of the foregoing, the respondent Raymond T. Greene be, and he hereby is, given leave to resign from The Florida Bar effective February 28, 1971.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FOURTH SHIFT
CORPORATION BALANCE SHEET FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 12/31/97 AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD ENDED 12/31/97 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,758
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,651<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        482
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,922
<PP&E>                                          14,131
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,628
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,083
<BONDS>                                          1,299
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,429
<SALES>                                         25,181
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,318
<CGS>                                            5,108
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,317
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   432
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,773)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       328
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,101)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,311
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,790)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.39)
<FN>
<F1>THESE ASSETS VALUES REPRESENT AMOUNTS NET OF ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS.
</FN>


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 202 (Monday, October 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54461-54462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27648]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


Office of Transportation Audits; Stocking Change of a Standard 
Form

AGENCY: General Services Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The General Services Administration/Office of Transportation 
is changing the stocking of the following Standard form because of low 
use demand:

SF 362, U.S. Government Freight Loss/Damage Claim

    Since this form is not authorized for local reproduction, you can 
obtain the updated camera copy in three ways:

From the ``U.S. Government Management Policy CD-ROM'';
On the internet. Address: http://www.gsa.gov/forms; or
From CARM, Attn.: Barbara Williams, (202) 501-0581.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Transportation Audit Division, (202) 219-1494. This contact is for 
information on completing the form and interpreting the FPMR only.

DATES: Effective October 20, 1997.


[[Page 54462]]


    Dated: October 1, 1997.
Barbara M. Williams,
Deputy Standard and Optional Forms Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-27648 Filed 10-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-34-M
What Is The School Flag Program?

The School Flag Program uses colored flags based 

on U.S. EPA’s Air Quality Index (AQI) to notify 

teachers, coaches, students, and others about 

outdoor air quality conditions. Schools raise a 

colored flag each day that corresponds to their local 

air quality forecast.

Why Is This Program Important?

The School Flag Program creates public awareness 

of outdoor air quality conditions. Children can 

continue to get plenty of physical activity, while 

still protecting their health from poor air quality. 

Children (including teenagers) are at greater risk 

from air pollution because their lungs are still 

developing and they breathe more air per pound 

of body weight than adults. When air quality is 

unhealthy, activities can often be modified or 

moved inside. Recommendations for outdoor 

activities on poor air quality days can be found at 

www.airnow.gov/schoolflag.

What Is The Air Quality Index?

The Air Quality Index is a guide for reporting daily 

air quality. It uses colors and numbers to show how 

clean or polluted the air is. EPA uses the Air Quality 

Index to report ground-level ozone and particle 

pollution. For each pollutant, EPA has established 

national standards to protect people’s health.

EPA Flag Program Contact

Donna Rogers 

US Environmental Protection Agency

Email: rogers.donna@epa.gov

What Do The Colors Mean?

The School Flag Program uses green, yellow, orange, 

red and purple flags. These colors correspond to the 

Air Quality Index.

Green means air quality is good. 

Yellow means air quality is 

moderate. 

Orange means air quality is 

unhealthy for sensitive groups -- 

people with lung disease such as 

asthma, people with heart disease, 

children, and older adults.

Purple means air quality is very 

unhealthy. 

How Will I Know What Color Flag To Use?

Check the AQI at www.epa.gov/airnow. Sign up for 

emails (www.airnow.gov/enviroflash), download the 

AirNow app, or install the AirNow widget on your 

website.

School Flag Program: Fact Sheet

EPA-456/F-13-004

August 2013

School Flag

PROGRAM

Red means air quality is unhealthy.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3016 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the clean vehicle 

credit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 4, 2023 

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

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the clean vehicle credit. 

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 ‘‘End Taxpayer Sub5 sidies for Electric Vehicles Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CLEAN VEHICLE CREDIT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart B of part IV of sub8 chapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 

9 1986 is amended by striking section 30D (and by striking 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3016 IS

1 the item relating to such section in the table of sections 

2 for such subpart). 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

4 (1) Section 30B(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue 

5 Code of 1986 is amended by striking subparagraph 

6 (D). 

7 (2) Section 38(b) of such Code is amended by 

8 striking paragraph (30). 

9 (3) Section 179D(d)(3)(B)(ii) of such Code is 

10 amended by inserting ‘‘, as in effect on the day be11 fore the date of the enactment of the End Taxpayer 

12 Subsidies for Electric Vehicles Act’’ after ‘‘section 

13 30D(g)(9)’’. 

14 (4) Section 1016(a) of such Code is amended— 

15 (A) in paragraph (36), by adding ‘‘and’’ at 

16 the end, 

17 (B) by striking paragraph (37), and 

18 (C) by redesignating paragraph (38) as 

19 paragraph (37). 

20 (5) Section 6213(g)(2) of such Code is amend21 ed by striking subparagraph (T). 

22 (6) Section 6417(d)(1)(A)(iv) of such Code is 

23 amended by inserting ‘‘, as in effect on the day be24 fore the date of the enactment of the End Taxpayer 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 3016 IS

1 Subsidies for Electric Vehicles Act’’ after ‘‘section 

2 30D(g)(9)’’. 

3 (7) Section 6501(m) of such Code is amended 

4 by striking ‘‘30D(f)(6),’’. 

5 (8) Section 166(b)(5)(A)(ii) of title 23, United 

6 States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, as in effect 

7 on the day before the date of the enactment of the 

8 End Taxpayer Subsidies for Electric Vehicles Act’’ 

9 after ‘‘section 30D(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue 

10 Code of 1986’’. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to vehicles placed in service during 

13 any calendar year beginning after the date of enactment 

14 of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### RADIO COMMUNICATION CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; Thomas J. Brennan d/b/a Radio Communication Corporation and Thomas J. Brennan, jointly and individually as guarantor, Appellants, v. OKI ELECTRONICS OF AMERICA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 2402.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

June 23, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52681-52682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26708]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Foreign Agricultural Service


Public Briefing on Development of a U.S. Action Plan on Food 
Security

AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a public meeting regarding 
development of a U.S. Action Plan on Food Security will take place on 
November 5, to brief the public on a discussion paper that is being 
developed on international topics to be addressed in the U.S. Action 
Plan and to respond to questions and receive reactions. A similar 
meeting will be held in December on domestic topics. The purpose of 
these meetings is to facilitate public participation in the process of 
developing the U.S. Action Plan on Food Security.

DATES: The meeting will be held November 5, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in Room 
107A. Administration Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture in 
Washington, D.C.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The 
discussion paper will be released to the public on World Food Day, 
October 16 and will be available on the U.S. Government Food Security 
home page (http://www.fas.ussda.gov/icd/summit/summit.html). Additional 
information will also be posted on the home page.
    Requests for copies of the paper and inquiries may be directed to 
the Office of the National Food Security Coordinator, Foreign 
Agricultural

[[Page 52682]]

Service, Room 3008 South Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 14th 
and Independence Ave. SW, Washington, D.C. 20250, telephone (202) 690-
0776 or fax (202) 720-6103.
    The topics to be addressed at the November 5 meeting are as 
follows:

Combined International/Domestic Topic

1. Human Rights as a Framework for Food Security

Priority International Topics

2. Appropriate Research, Education, and Extension for Food Production 
and Food Systems
    Economically, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Agriculture
3. Measuring Hunger and Mapping Risk
4. Economic Policy, Trade, and Food Distribution
5. Prioritize the Allocation of Foreign Assistance to Promote Food 
Security
    Health, Nutrition, and Population Stabilization
    The Role of Women
6. Effective Use of Food Aid to Promote Food Security
7. Maximizing and Targeting Resources.

    Signed in Washington, DC, September 30, 1997.
Chistopher E. Goldthwait,
Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service.
[FR Doc. 97-26708 Filed 10-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-10-M
#### John MISKOFF, Appellant, v. Frank G. MYERS and Reynolds-Myers Insurance, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 70-550.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 9, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1971.

Creel & Glasgow, Miami, for appellant.

Fowler, White, Humkey, Burnett, Hurley & Banick, and George B. Foss, Jr., Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HEN-DRY, J., and VANN, HAROLD R., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in Krohne v. Orlando Farming Corporation, 102 So.2d 399 (Fla.App.1958).
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 10(HH)


                                SECOND AMENDMENT
                               TO THE ROHR, INC.,
                            1995 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

         Pursuant to the provisions of Section 9, the 1995 Stock Incentive Plan
is hereby amended as follows:

1.       Paragraph 9 is hereby amended to read in full as follows:

         "The Board or the Executive Compensation and Development Committee (the
         "Committees) may alter, amend, suspend or terminate the Plan at any
         time and in any manner subject to the following limitations: (a) no
         such action of the Board or the Committee, unless taken with the
         approval of the shareholders of the Company, may (i) increase the
         maximum number of shares that may be made subject to sale or issuance
         or may be sold or issued under the Plan, (ii) alter the class of
         persons eligible to participate in the Plan, (iii) change the exercise
         price of or replace any Stock Option granted hereunder or under any
         other Company stock incentive plan where the purpose of such
         replacement is to reduce the per share exercise or purchase price of
         such award (other than any adjustment provided in Section 3), or (iv)
         grant a Stock Option with an exercise price less than 100 percent of
         the Fair Market Value of the underlying Common Stock on the date the
         Committee approves such option; and (b) no such amendment or
         termination shall deprive the recipient of any Award theretofore
         granted under this Plan, without the consent of such recipient, of any
         of his or her rights thereunder or with respect thereto.

                  However, the Board or the Committee may in its discretion
         determine, with respect to any other amendments of the Plan, that such
         amendments shall only become effective upon approval by the
         stockholders of the Company, if the Board or the Committee determines
         that such stockholder approval may be advisable, such as for the
         purpose of obtaining or retaining any statutory or regulatory benefits
         under securities or tax or other laws, or of satisfying any applicable
         stock exchange listing requirements."

2.       In all other respects, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Rohr, Inc., has caused its duly authorized officer
to execute this Amendment on the 13th day of September 1996.

                                             ROHR, INC.



                                             By: /s/  R.W. Madsen
                                                 ------------------
                                                 R.W. Madsen
                                                 Vice President, General Counsel
                                                 and Secretary
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 vs. 

MARJORIE DIEHL-ARMSTRONG, 

 

Criminal No. 07-26 

Judge Sean J. McLaughlin 

ORDER OF COURT

AND NOW, to-wit, this ________ day of _________________. 2010, upon 

consideration of the within Motion for Court Order Directing Regional Cancer Center and Erie 

County Prison to Turn Over Medical Records of Defendant, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED and DECREED that said motion is hereby granted.

 It is ORDERED that the Regional Cancer Center located at 2500 West 12th Street, Erie, 

PA 16505-4597 is to provide a copy—including periodic updates when requested in writing by 

Attorney Sughrue—of Ms. Diehl-Armstrong’s (SSN: ***-**-****, DOB 02/26/1949) medical 

records to Counsel of Record, Douglas Sughrue at his office located at 428 Forbes Avenue, Suite 

2400, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. 

 It is further ORDERED that the Erie County Jail located at 1618 Ash Street, Erie, PA 

16503-2168 is to provide a copy—including periodic updates when requested in writing by 

Attorney Sughrue—of Ms. Diehl-Armstrong’s medical records to Counsel of Record, Douglas 

Sughrue at his office located at 428 Forbes Avenue, Suite 2400, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. 

BY THE COURT: 

______________________________, J. 

Case 1:07-cr-00026-DWA Document 156 Filed 06/04/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Deloris ARNOLD, individually and in her capacity as natural tutrix of the minor, Joseph Arnold, Jr. v. Edna J. BYRNE and Allstate Insurance Company.

No. 4345.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

July 15, 1971.

James Foley, III, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

E. Kelleher Simon, of Sessions, Fishman, Rosenson, Snellings & Boisfontaine, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

Before SAMUEL, REDMANN and BOUTALL, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing her suit for herself and her minor son for damages from a night-time accident between an automobile and an unlighted bicycle.

The testimony of the car driver and that of the investigating police officer supports the conclusion that the minor, rushing in the rain and not seeing the car, ran into the side of the car at an intersection. The testimony of an independent eye-witness (persuasive at times but also confusing) and, to a lesser extent, that of the 16-year-old minor would support the conclusion that the car ran irjto the rear of the bicycle “a house and a half” from the intersection. The policeman did testify the vehicles were 20 to 30 feet from the intersection, which appellant argues supports plaintiff’s view and is more consistent with plaintiff testimony. But that stopping point is also consistent with stopping distance of a slow-moving car.

The trial judge accepted the defense testimony. Our reading of the record does not afford us a basis to reverse his conclusion.

Affirmed.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3124

___________________________ Vickie Ann Wright lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

____________ Submitted: April 11, 2023 Filed: April 20, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Vickie Wright appeals an order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We agree substantial evidence in therecord as a whole supports the adverse decision and affirm. 1 See Kraus v. Saul , 988

F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review). Specifically, we find the administrative law judge (ALJ) properly discounted Wright’s subjective complaints, and substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) determination. See Whitman v. Colvin , 762 F.3d 701, 706 (8th Cir. 2014) (concluding ALJ properly considered claimant’s lack of medical care in considering his allegations of debilitating symptoms); Krogmeier v. Barnhart , 294 F.3d 1019, 1024 (8th Cir. 2002) (concluding substantial evidence supported RFC determination based on medical records, medical opinions, and some aspects of claimant’s testimony). We find the ALJ did not err in proceeding with Wright’s hearing despite her pro se status, as Wright received written notice of her right to representation and a list of organizations to contact regarding representation, and as she acknowledged and waived the right to representation at the hearing. See Wingert v. Bowen , 894 F.2d 296, 298 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting notice of hearing, which explained right to counsel, and claimant’s reply indicating he wished to proceed without counsel showed he was properly advised of and knowingly waived right). Finally, we find no merit to Wright’s contention that the district court was biased against her. See Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (noting “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias” finding). The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Abbie Crites-Leoni, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2-
#### George Russell HILSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-17.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 17, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.