alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28118]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Materials Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended, the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:
    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Materials Research #1203.
    Date & Time: November 12, 1997, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: Rooms 770, 920, 970, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. H. Hollis Wickman, Program Director, 
Division of Materials Research, Room, 1065, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230 703-306-1816.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Condensed Matter Physics CAREER 
proposals as part of the selection process of awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed includes 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-28118 Filed 10-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 21, 2015

No. 04-14-00838-CV

In the INTEREST OF G.P.C., a Child

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007EM501481

Honorable Eric Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK 

OF JURISDICTION.

We ORDER that appellant, Alronce J. Comeaux, bear all costs of this appeal. 

It is so ORDERED on January 21, 2015.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of January, 2015.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5653-5654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2909]


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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement 
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

    In accordance with the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7413(g) and 
Departmental Policy, 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.7, notice is hereby given that a 
proposed Consent Decree and proposed Settlement Agreement in Concerned 
Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Inc. & Patrick Jerome Chavez v. United 
States Department of Energy & Siegfried S. Hecker, Civil No. 94-1039 M 
(D.N.M.), were lodged with the United States District Court for the 
District of New Mexico on January 14, 1997. Final approval and entry of 
the proposed Consent Decree and final approval of the Settlement 
Agreement are subject to the requirements of section 113(g) of the 
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7413(g), and the provisions of 28 C.F.R. 
Sec. 50.7.
    The Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement resolve allegations 
that the Los Alamos National Laboratory (``LANL''), located in Los 
Alamos, New Mexico, was not in full compliance with the national 
emission standard for radionuclides, as set forth at 40 C.F.R. 
Secs. 61.90-61.97 (``Subpart H''). Under the proposed Consent Decree, 
the U.S. Department of Energy would be required to contract for, fund 
and facilitate performance of comprehensive independent technical 
audits described in the Consent Decree, operate additional AIRNET 
stations, add thermoluminescent dosimeters to detect gamma and thermal 
neutron emissions, and to make a payment of $150,000 to the U.S. 
Treasury. The proposed Settlement Agreement would require, in part, the 
U.S. Department of Energy to fund a program at the University of New 
Mexico and to conduct radiation education training for the community.
    The Department of Justice will receive written comments relating to 
the proposed Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement for a period of 30 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Comments should be 
addressed to Alan D. Greenberg, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Environmental Defense Section, 999 18th Street, Suite 945, Denver, CO 
80202, should refer to Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Inc. & 
Patrick Jerome Chavez v. United States Department of Energy & Siegfried 
S. Hecker, Civil No. 94-1039 M (D.N.M.), and should also make reference 
to DJ# 90-5-2-1-1749A.
    The proposed Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement may be 
examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the 
District of New Mexico, 500 Gold Avenue, 10th Floor, Albuquerque, NM 
87102 or at the Los Alamos National Laboratory Reading

[[Page 5654]]

Room, 1350 Central Avenue, Suite 101, Los Alamos, NM 87544, (505) 665-
2122 or (800) 343-2342.
Letitia J. Grishaw,
Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources 
Division.
[FR Doc. 97-2909 Filed 2-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 59928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29353]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


Orlando Super Card, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

November 3, 1997.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Orlando Super Card, Inc. (``Orlando Super Card'') because of questions 
regarding (1) the trading and true value of the common stock of Orlando 
Super Card; and (2) the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated 
information concerning Orlando Super Card's financial prospects.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed 
company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, November 3, 
1997 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on November 14, 1997.

    By the Commission.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29353 Filed 11-3-97; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20549**

 

**SCHEDULE 14A**

 

**INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT**

**SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION**

 

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No.     )

 

| Filed by the Registrant | [ X ] |
|-------------------------|-------|

 

| Filed by a Party other than the Registrant | [ | ] |
|--------------------------------------------|---|---|

 

Check the appropriate box:

| [ X ] | Preliminary Proxy Statement |
|-------|-----------------------------|

 

| [   ] | Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) |
|-------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| [   ] | Definitive Proxy Statement |
|-------|----------------------------|

| [   ] | Definitive Additional Materials |
|-------|---------------------------------|

| [   ] | Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12 |
|-------|--------------------------------------------------|

 

DWS GLOBAL COMMODITIES STOCK FUND, INC.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

 

 ______________________________________________

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

 

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

| [ X ] | No fee required. |
|-------|------------------|

| [   ] | Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11. |
|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (1) | Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies: |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (2) | Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (3) | Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (4) | Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction: |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (5) | Total fee paid: |
|--------|-----|-----------------|

| [   ] | Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. |
|-------|-------------------------------------------------|

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3738 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3738

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, 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 ``Great Lakes Restoration Initiative 
Act of 2024'' or the ``GLRI Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 118(c)(7)(J)(i)(VI) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(7)(J)(i)(VI)) is amended by striking ``fiscal 
year 2026'' and inserting ``each of fiscal years 2026 through 2031''.

            Passed the Senate December 4, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3738

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

JAMES TUKI TAINOINO,

Appellant.

No. 73644-2-1

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: October 17, 2016

Per Curiam. James Tainoino appeals from his conviction following a plea of

guilty to attempted identity theft in the second degree and his sentence within the

standard range for a gross misdemeanor. Tainoino's court-appointed attorney has

filed a motion to withdraw on the ground that there is no basis for a good faith

argument on review. Pursuant to State v. Theobald. 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188

(1970), and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L Ed. 2d 493

(1967), the motion to withdraw must

[1] be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that

might arguably support the appeal. [2] A copy of counsel's brief should

be furnished the indigent and [3] time allowed him to raise any points

that he chooses; [4] the court-not counsel-then proceeds, after a full

examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly

frivolous.

Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).

This procedure has been followed. Tainoino's counsel on appeal filed a brief

with the motion to withdraw. Tainoino was served with a copy of the brief and
No. 73644-2-1/2

informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. He did not

file a statement of additional grounds.

The facts are accurately set forth in counsel's brief in support of the motion to

withdraw. The court has reviewed the briefs filed in this court and has independently

reviewed the entire record. The court specifically considered the following potential

issues raised by counsel:

1. Did the information provide constitutionally sufficient notice of the

charges?

2. Was there a sufficient factual basis to support Tainoino's plea?

3. Was the guilty plea involuntary?

4. Did the trial court err in imposing the sentence?

5. Did the sentencing court lack authority to impose legal financial

obligations?

The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is

granted and the appeal is dismissed.

For the court:

UrfJ*

cry

O

C~3

—J

••*-.

Sr- . ' •••"

Ul -: •-'•'•

ro ~-; -.--'.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6233

FLOYD GLENN WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD A. LANHAM; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA95-989-DKC)

Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 13, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Floyd Glenn Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current

version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for a certificate of

appealability, deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Williams

v. Lanham, No. CA-95-989-DKC (D. Md. Jan. 30, 1997). See Lindh v.

Murphy, 117 S. Ct. 2059 (1997). We dispense 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
#### Billy Ray CLIFT v. STATE.

8 Div. 720.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 2, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1976.

*837Johnston & Johnston and J. Allen Brinkley, Huntsville, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Joel E. Dillard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARRIS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to ten years in the penitentiary.

Appellant moved the trial court to enter an order that the ten year sentence for robbery be made concurrent with a twenty-five year sentence for murder in the second degree which arose out of the same transaction and occurrence for which he was subsequently convicted of robbery.

The trial court made the following order:

> “IN CIRCUIT COURT FOR MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA

> STATE OF ALABAMA,

> PLAINTIFF

> VERSUS CASE NO. 74-718F

> BILLY RAY CLIFT,

> DEFENDANT

> “The defendant has moved that the Court order that the sentence of ten (10) years imprisonment imposed upon the defendant on June 17, 1975, following his conviction of robbery, be served concurrent with the sentence of twenty-five (25) years imprisonment imposed upon him on April 7, 1975, following his conviction of murder in the second degree in case number 74-720F. Upon consideration of the motion the Court is of the opinion that the motion is due to be, and the same is hereby, denied. Jones v. State, 316 So.2d 713 (1975).

> “This 15th day of April. 1976.

> fsig-nedl Wm. D. Pap-e_

> CIRCUIT JUDGE”

The sole and only issue presented on this appeal is whether the ten year sentence for robbery should be concurrent with the prior sentence of twenty-five years for murder in the second degree. We hold that appellant is entitled to the relief sought. *Burress v. State,*56 Ala.App. 414, 321 So.2d 752.

It is, therefore, the order and judgment of this Court that the sentence of ten years imposed upon appellant following his conviction of robbery on June 17, 1975. (Circuit Court Case No. 74-718F), is to run concurrently with the first ten years of the twenty-five year sentence imposed upon appellant following his conviction for murder in the second degree on April 7,1975. (Circuit Court Case No. 74-720F). The murder conviction was not appealed.

Robbery conviction is affirmed but cause remanded for concurrent sentence.

All the Judges concur, except CATES, P. J., not sitting.
Item 77D DWS Latin America Equity Fund
(a series of DWS International Fund, Inc.)


At a meeting held May 21-22, 2008, the
Board of Directors of DWS Latin America
Equity Fund, a series of DWS International
Fund, Inc., approved the Fund's
participation in a securities lending
program (the "Program") effective on
or about June 6, 2008.  Pursuant to the
program, the Fund may lend its investment
securities in an amount up to 33 1/3% of
its total assets to approved
institutional borrowers who need to
borrow securities in order to complete
certain transactions.


C:\Documents and Settings\e444940\
Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK8B\Exhibit 77D DWS
International Fund Inc .doc
400 Seventh St., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20590

June 15, 2005 

In Reply Refer To: HSA-10/CC-12N

C. Eugene Buth, Ph. D., P.E. 

Senior Research Engineer 

Texas Transportation Institute 

 3135 TAMU 

College Station, Texas 77843-3135 

Dear Dr. Buth: 

In your May 17, 2005, letter to Mr. Richard Powers, you requested the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) approval of a modified cable release post (CRP) as an alternative 

anchor post to the design originally tested and accepted for use with the ET-2000 family of 

W-beam guardrail terminals and for a high-tensioned cable rail. You also provided 

information on the results of pendulum testing done to verify that the new design would allow 

the upper section of the anchor post to release when struck from either direction, yet remain 

intact when the rail was impacted downstream from the end post to transfer tensile load into 

the anchor. 

You stated that the primary design change was the use of 1⁄2-inch and 3⁄4-inch thick flat steel 

plate to form the upper and lower inclined surfaces, respectively, in lieu of the channel sections 

used in the original design. Additionally, the steel side plates on the bottom post were 

lengthened to reduce deformation of the post flanges under loads, thereby reducing 

maintenance requirements. These changes are shown as an enclosure to this letter. 

I agree that the changes described above and depicted in the enclosure are not likely to affect 

the performance of any currently approved ET designs or your cable anchor and that the new 

post can be considered an acceptable alternative design to the end post that was described in 

the FHWA acceptance letters CC-12J, dated June 24, 2002, and CC-76, dated August 29, 2002. 

Sincerely yours, 

 

/original signed by/ 

John R. Baxter, P.E. 

 Director, Office of Safety Design 

 Office of Safety

Enclosure
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Dion Vernon Williams v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00783

- CR

Trial court case number: 1577604

Trial court: County Crim inal C ourt No

. 9 of Tarrant County

A ppellant’s retained counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and appoint appellate counsel, averring that appellant was found to be indigent by the trial court. Counsel’s request to withdraw

is granted

. However, becau se appointing coun sel is a function of the trial court, we abate and

remand the cause to the trial court to determine whether appellant is still indigent and, if so, to appoint appellate counsel. The trial court clerk is directed to file, within 30 days of the date of th is

order , a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings, recommendations, and any order made. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 34.5(c). C ounsel’s related motion for expedited consideration and to stay appellate briefing deadlines is dismissed as moot.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s determination is f iled in this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_____

/s/ Gordon Goodman

__________ Acting individually

Date: Februar y 11, 2020
# October 2008 - October 2010
An equal opportunity employer 1220 L Street, Northwest Russell White Washington, DC 20005

- 4070 Health Sciences Manager

Tel 202

- 682

- 8344

Fax 202

- 682

- 8270 whiter@api.org

September 2 , 2011

Karl Simon

Division Director Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Mail Code: 6406J Washington, DC 20460

RE: CAA Section 211(b) Fuels and Fuel Additives Health Effects Testing Regulation: Final Submission for 211(b) (Docket No. A

- 90

- 07) Final Report Gasoline TBA Vapor Condensate: A One

- Generation Whole

- Body Inhalation Repro ductive Toxicity Study in Rats ( HLS Study No. 00

- 420 6 )

Dear Mr. Karl Simon:

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG), is submitting the following information to EPA as partial fulfillment of the CAA Sect ion 211(b) Alternative Tier 2 requirements of the testing regulation:

**•** Final Report Gasoline TBA Vapor Condensa te: A One

- Generation Whole

- Body Inhalation Reproductive Toxicity Study in Rats (HLS Study No. 00

- 420 6 )

This report has undergone review by two independent peer

- reviewers, outside QA/QC, th e 211(b) Technical W orkgroup, and EPA (Hauchman to Oge Memorandum, December 17, 2010).

Therefore the final report is being submitted to you at the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, as part of the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 211(b)(2) and 211(e) (Docket No. A

- 90

- 07). If you require further information or have any questions regarding this submission, please contact me.

Regards,

Russell D. White

Encl (1): Final Report Gasoline TBA Vapor Condensate: A One

- Generation Whole Body Inhalation Reproductive Toxicity Study in Rats (HLS Study No. 00

- 420 6 )

Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA (via email)
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03585

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.