alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Memorandum 

Subject: ACTION: Concurrence with the Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2016 Disadvantaged Business 

Enterprise/Supportive Services Program 

Date: 

From: 

To: 

Statements of Work 

Irene Rico 

Division Administrators 

Civil Rights Specialists 

In Reply Refer To: 

HCR-30 

The Federal Highway Administration Office of Civil Rights (HCR) concurs with the Division 

Offices' recommendations for the approval of the State Departments of Transportation FY2016 

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise/Supportive Services Statements of Work. All Divisions 

should ensure that the actual obligated funds reflect the funding amount listed in Table 1. Please 

be sure to upload all Disadvantaged Business Enterprise/Supportive Services accomplishment 

reports your Division receives from the State to the Civil Rights Discipline SharePoint in the 

respective State's folder. 

By copy of this memorandum, HCR requests that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer Fiscal 

Management Information System (FMIS) Team process the following amounts to the States 

listed in Table I below in FMIS. 

If you have any questions, please contact Tracy Duval at (202) 366-1604 or by email at 

tracy.duval@dot.gov. 

cc: FMIS Team 
Alabama M48E 2015 $249,922 

Alaska M48E 2015 $165,175 

Arizona M48E 2015 $241,021 

Arkansas M48E 2015 $170,553 

California M48E 2015 $1,209,059 

Colorado M48E 2015 $176,151 

Connecticut M48E 2015 $165,454 

Delaware M48E 2015 $55,724 

Dist. of Col. M48E 2015 $52,561 

Florida M48E 2015 $624,132 

Georgia Z480 2016 $425,343 

Guam ─ $0 

Hawaii Z480 2016 $55,716 

Idaho Z480 2016 $94,220 

Illinois Z480 2016 $468,346 

Indiana Z480 2016 $313,885 

Iowa Z480 2016 $161,894 

Kansas Z480 2016 $124,485 

Kentucky Z480 2016 $218,873 

Louisiana Z480 2016 $231,201 

Maine Z480 2016 $60,808 

Maryland Z480 2016 $189,894 

Massachusetts Z480 2016 $200,069 

Michigan Z480 2016 $346,834 

Minnesota Z480 2016 $214,805 

Mississippi Z480 2016 $159,320 

Missouri Z480 2016 $311,853 

Montana Z480 2016 $135,158 

Nebraska ─ $0 

Nevada Z480 2016 $119,617 

New Hampshire Z480 2016 $54,427 

New Jersey Z480 2016 $328,909 

New Mexico ─ $0 

New York Z480 2016 $552,942 

N. Mar ─ $0 

North Carolina M480 2014 $343,564 

North Dakota Z480 2016 $81,784 

Ohio Z480 2016 $441,556 

Oklahoma Z480 2016 $208,920 

Oregon Z480 2016 $164,651 

Pennsylvania Z480 2016 $540,487 

Puerto Rico $0 

Rhode Island Z480 2016 $72,043 

Samoa ─ $0 

South Carolina Z480 2016 $220,585 

South Dakota Z480 2016 $92,899 

Tennessee Z480 2016 $278,367 

Texas Z480 2016 $1,137,079 

Utah ─ $0 

Vermont Z480 2016 $66,856 

Virgin Island Z480 2016 $22,500 

Virginia Z480 2016 $335,220 

Washington Z480 2016 $223,315 

West Virginia Z480 2016 $143,959 

Wisconsin Z480 2016 $247,864 

Wyoming ─ $0 

$12,500,000 

State

Program 

Code

Total FY16 

DBE SS 

Allocation

Total Allocation

Program 

Code 

Fiscal Year

Table I
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12-422V

Filed: April 3, 2014

Not for Publication

*************************************

LILLIAN RANDALL, *

*

 Petitioner, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision based on

 * stipulation of fact

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Ronald C. Homer, Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Melonie J. McCall, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On April 3, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner asserts that she incurred 

no out-of-pocket expenses in pursuit of her petition. Petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ 

fees and costs on March 25, 2014. During informal discussions, respondent raised objections to 

certain items in petitioner’s application. Based on these objections, petitioner amends her request 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.
2

for reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs to $14,566.30. Respondent does not object to this

amount. The undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards

$14,566.30, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the 

form of a check made payable jointly to petitioner and Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C. in the 

amount of $14,566.30.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1311

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Frederick Cooper, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 27, 2011

Filed: October 4, 2011

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Frederick Cooper appeals the 480-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed when it granted his motion to reduce his life sentence based on 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. After

considering the arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse

its discretion in sentencing Cooper: the record reflects that the court correctly

determined the amended Guidelines range, carefully considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

and the applicable Guidelines policy statement, and explained why it chose this
-2-

particular reduction. See United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961, 963-64 (8th Cir.

2010). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 05-2246

JOSE QUINONES,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

HOUSER BUICK,

Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on February 2, 2006 is

amended as follows:

Cover sheet: Insert [Hon. Kenneth P. Neiman, U.S.

Magistrate Judge] and delete [Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S.

District Judge]
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

FLEUR T. TEHRANI, PH.D.,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

POLAR ELECTRO INC. and POLAR ELECTRO OY, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

____________________ 

2010-1152 

______________________

 

 Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 05-CV-1113, Judge 

David O. Carter. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

WILLIAM C. ROOKLIDGE, Howrey LLP, of Irvine, 

California, argued for plaintiff- appellee. With him on 

the brief were MARTHA K. GOODING and RYAN E. LINDSEY. 

JOHN P. MORAN, Holland & Knight, LLP, of 

Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellants. With 

him on the brief was JOSHUA C. KRUMHOLZ, of Boston, 

Massachusetts. Of counsel was BENJAMIN D. ENERSON, Of 

Boston, Massachusetts. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

PER CURIAM (RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and 

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges). 
AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

October 12, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2927 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2927

  To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to increase 
  Tribal access to water conservation and efficiency grants, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 26 (legislative day, September 22), 2023

    Mr. Lujan (for himself, Ms. Cortez Masto, and Mr. Hickenlooper) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to increase 
  Tribal access to water conservation and efficiency grants, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``WaterSMART Access for Tribes Act''.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OR WAIVER OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS OF CERTAIN 
              WATER MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS FOR INDIAN TRIBES.

    Section 9504(a)(3)(E)(i) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act 
of 2009 (42 U.S.C. 10364(a)(3)(E)(i)) is amended--
            (1) in subclause (I), by striking ``subclause (II)'' and 
        inserting ``subclauses (II) and (III)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                                    ``(III) Waiver; reduction.--With 
                                respect to a grant or other agreement 
                                entered into under paragraph (1) 
                                between the Secretary and an Indian 
                                tribe, the Secretary may reduce or 
                                waive the non-Federal share of the cost 
                                of any infrastructure improvement or 
                                activity that is the subject of the 
                                grant or other agreement if the 
                                Secretary determines that contribution 
                                of the non-Federal share would result 
                                in a financial hardship for the Indian 
                                tribe.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-59,058-11

IN RE SAMUEL ROY JACKSON, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 913043 IN THE 183rd DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the 183rd District Court of Harris County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Harris

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas

corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Harris County. Should the

response include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was

served with the habeas application shall also be submitted with the response. This application for

leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the

appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: October 5, 2016

Do not publish
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAN L. VACEK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 08-221 Erie

v. )

)

PENNSYLVANIA JUDICIAL CONDUCT )

BOARD, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on August 6, 2008,

March 28, 2008 and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise

Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 108], filed on

February 16, 2010, recommended that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants City of

Erie Traffic Court/City of Erie, Erie Police Department, John Doe #1/Erie Police

Department, John Doe #2/Erie Police Department, John Doe #3/Erie Police

Department, Lt. Liebel, Sgt. Talarico, and Sgt. Dahlstrand [Doc. No. 83] be granted.

The Magistrate Judge further recommended that Count 12 of the Amended Complaint

alleging the “Denial of Property Rights to Cause of Action in violation of 42 U.S.C. §

1982" against all named Defendants in both their individual and official capacities be

dismissed for failure to state a claim. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the

date of service to file objections. No objections were filed. After de novo review of the

complaint and documents in the case, the Court adopts the Report and

Recommendation, but writes briefly to clarify two points.

I find, contrary to the Report and Recommendation, that the claims against the

municipal police officers in their official capacities are not barred by the Eleventh

Amendment. See Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S.

274, 280 (1977). However, a dismissal of the action against these Defendants is

independently supportable for the reasons set forth in the Report and

Case 1:08-cv-00221-SJM-SPB Document 110 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 2
2

Recommendation. In addition, I find that dismissal is also appropriate on the basis of

the running of the statute of limitations. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985).

AND NOW, this 4 day of March, 2010; th

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 83] is GRANTED

and Count 12 of the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:08-cv-00221-SJM-SPB Document 110 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Pedro PEREZ, a/k/a Pedro Anthony Perez, Jr., Respondent.

No. 70-676.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 17, 1970.

Certiorari dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28210]



[[Page 55398]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Closed Meeting of the United States Naval Academy Board 
of Vistors

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given that the Board of 
Visitors to the United States Naval Academy will meet on October 30, 
1997, at the Senate Russell Office Building, at 8:30 a.m. This meeting 
will be closed to the public.
    The purpose of the meeting is to make such inquiry as the Board 
shall deem necessary into the state of morale and discipline, the 
curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and 
academic methods of the Naval Academy. During this meeting inquiries 
will relate to the internal personnel rules and practices of the 
Academy, may involve on-going criminal investigations, and include 
discussions of personal information the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 
Accordingly, the Under Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing 
that the special committee meeting shall be closed to the public 
because the meeting will be concerned with matters as outlined in 
section 552(b) (2), (5), (6), (7) and (9) of Title 5, United States 
Code.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS MEETING CONTACT: Lieutenant 
Commander Gerral K. David, U.S. Navy, Executive Secretary to the Board 
of Visitors, Office of the Superintendent, United States Naval Academy, 
Annapolis, MD 21402-5000, telephone number (410) 293-1503.

    Dated October 14, 1997.
Darse E. Crandall,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-28210 Filed 10-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
Exhibit 23.02


INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT




To the Board of Directors
Micros-to-Mainframes, Inc.


We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(No. 333-72269) on Form S-8 and Registration Statement (No. 333-49718) on Form
S-3 of Micros-to-Mainframes, Inc. of our report dated May 21, 2002 related to
the consolidated balance sheets of Micros-to-Mainframes, Inc. and Subsidiaries
as of March 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the three years
in the period ended March 31, 2002, which report appears in the March 31, 2002
annual report on Form 10-K of Micros-to-Mainframes, Inc.




GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York, New York

June 26, 2002
#### James JOHNSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-39.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 14, 1970.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, Gerald Sohn, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Horace A. Knowlton, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellee has filed a motion to quash this appeal wherein appellant seeks reversal of a robbery conviction on the ground that the appeal is frivolous. Rather than consider this matter upon ap-pellee’s motion to quash, we have reviewed the entire record and appellant’s brief in light of the sole point on appeal which questions the sufficiency of the evidence to *315support the verdict. It clearly appears that the evidence presented to the jury was more than sufficient to support the guilty verdict and the consequent judgment and sentence. Nothing further is to be gained by oral argument in this matter, and we therefore dispense therewith in accordance with Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

There being no error demonstrated on the record before us, the judgment appealed is therefore affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Reginald DUDLEY.

No. 61474.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 1978.

Fred S. Gahagan, Gahagan & Gahagan, Natchitoches, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ronald C. Martin, Dist. Atty., Andrew S. Vallien, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The State charged the defendant, Reginald Dudley, with simple burglary, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:62. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the defendant pled guilty to a reduced charge of theft over $100 but less than $500. The court sentenced him to two years imprisonment.

The defendant appeals, relying on two assignments of error. He contends that Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Arti-*508ele 875, governing presentence investigation, denies due process and that the two-year sentence is excessive.

We may not review these arguments. To raise an alleged irregularity or error on appeal, the defendant must contemporaneously object to the irregularity or error and present his reasons to the trial judge. Absent compliance with this procedure, the irregularity or error is waived. LSA-C. Cr.P. Art. 841. As the defendant failed to object either when the court ordered the presentence report or when the court sentenced him, he is precluded from raising these matters on appeal. See *State v. Williams,*La., 322 So.2d 177 (1975).

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

DIXON, J., concurs.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 772
Disc ContentsHome | Acronyms | Contents | Navigation | Profiles | Logs | Metadata | Software | Index
Click on a file or folder to view the file or to access folder contents.

NOTE: PDF files may be viewed using free Adobe Reader software. If unable to access the PDF files, please contact aforde@usgs.gov. The web version of this archive does not contain the SEG Y trace files. These files are very large and would require extremely long download times. To obtain the complete DVD archive, contact USGS Information at 1-888-ASK-USGS or infoservices@usgs.gov.
Home | Acronyms | Contents | Navigation | Profiles | Logs | Metadata | Software | Index
AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/772/html/contents.htmlPage Contact Information: GS Pubs Web ContactPage Last Modified: Friday, July 19, 2013, 01:25:37 PM
#### Jack Douglas THOMPSON and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellants, v. David L. ARMSTRONG, Appellee.

No. 70-714.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 3, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28109]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-1-126-001]


Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 17, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 15, 1997, Tuscarora Gas Transmission 
Company (Tuscarora) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, Sub First Revised Sheet No. 5, to become 
effective October 1, 1997.
    Tuscarora states that the filing is being made in compliance with 
the Commission's Order dated September 29, 1997. Tuscarora asserts that 
the purpose of this filing is to eliminate the volumetric charge for 
capacity release from the IT rate sheet.
    Tuscarora states that copies of this filing were mailed to all 
parties on the service list, customers of Tuscarora and interested 
state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in 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. 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. 97-28109 Filed 10-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M