alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29545]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-4-010]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 31, 1997, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet to be effective 
November 1, 1997:

Sub Third Revised Sheet No. 339

    Panhandle asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the Commission's Letter Order issued on October 17, 1997 in Docket No. 
RP97-4-009 to reflect the proper version number designation for the 
standards promulgated by the Gas Industry Standards Board which are 
incorporated by reference in Panhandle's tariff.
    Panhandle states that copies of this filing are being served on all 
affected customers, applicable state regulatory agencies and parties to 
this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 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. 97-29545 Filed 11-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### HARDERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., and the Travelers Insurance Company, a corporation, Petitioners, v. Walter SANDERS, Jr., and Florida Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 44537.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 6, 1974.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Appeal of Mary D. MATHEWS and Hurtis E. Mathews. In re ADOPTION OF Julie MILLER, minor.

No. EE-333.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 18, 1977.

Brooks Taylor, Crestview, for appellants.

C. LeDon Anchors of Estergren, Fortune, Anchors & Powell, Fort Walton Beach, for appellee.-

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

BOYER, Acting C. J., concurs specially.

BOYER, Acting Chief Judge,

concurring specially.

I concur only because of the presumption of correctness with which the order of a *717trial court reaches this court. I am not of the view that the ages of appellants are or should have been a controlling factor and had I been the trial judge I would have granted the petition for adoption. However, District Courts of Appeal have been repeatedly admonished by the Supreme Court of Florida against substituting their opinions for those of a trial judge. I therefore reluctantly join with my brethren in affirmance.
#### Robert Hartness WOODRUFF, Appellant, v. Ruth L. WOODRUFF, Appellee.

No. 73-275.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 8, 1974.

Marvin E. Newman and Jon S. Rosenberg, of Newman & Rosenberg, Orlando, for appellant.

J. Russell Hornsby, Orlando, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon a review of the record on appeal and after consideration of the briefs and oral argument of counsel for the respective parties, numbered paragraph five of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage is modified as to rehabilitative alimony payable to the wife for only a period of two years. In all other respects the final judgment of dissolution of marriage is affirmed.

Affirmed as modified.

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and MA-GER, JJ., concur.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10 - 13 - 00174 - CV TOM MADDUX, INDIVIDU ALLY, AND DBA LOST PRAIRIE CYC LES; AKA THOMAS EARL MADDUX , Appellant v. MICHAEL D. REID , Appellee

From the 87th District Court Limestone County, Texas Trial Court No. 29,549
- A

O R D E R
The Court has reached an impasse in our ability to obtain the reporter’s record in this appeal. Appellant contends he has not paid for the reporter’s record because he has not received a bill for the record. The reporter has verbally informed the Clerk o f this Court that the record has not been prepared because she has not been paid. However, the reporter will not provide written documentation that she has notified appellant ofMaddux v. Reid Page 2

the amount necessary to be paid for the reporter to prepare and deliver the r eporter’s
record. Accordingly, and because the trial court shares the responsibility to see that the appellate record is timely filed, see T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 35.3(c), we abate this proceeding and
remand it to the trial court.
The trial court is ordered to hold a hearing, within 21 days from the date of this order, to determine and resolve the issue with regard to the amount of payment required to obtain the record and a date (or number of days after payment) by which the reporter will have the record proper ly prepared and filed. Further, the trial court is ordered to inform appellant that if the reporter’s record is necessary to the appeal and is not timely paid for, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. Finally, the
trial court is ordered to inform the reporter that the consequences of the reporter failing to file the complete and proper record with this Court, as ordered by the trial court pursuant to the above order, is that the reporter may be held in contempt of court for which the repo rter may be ordered to pay a fine and may also be ordered to forfeit her fee for the preparation of the reporter’s record. A record of the hearing and any findings made by the trial court are due to be filed in this Court within 35 days from the date of th is order.

PER CURIAMMaddux v. Reid Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal abated Order issued and filed April 24, 2014
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
      PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Torbay Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
      I, William Thomas Large, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
      the
      Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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


Dated:
              November 14, 2006
            
            /s/
              William Thomas LargeWilliam
              Thomas Large, President,Chief
                Executive Officer and Chief
              Financial
                Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40078

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUCIANO FLORES-JIMENEZ, also known as Roberto Gonzalez-Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:17-CR-1205-1

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luciano FloresJimenez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Flores-Jimenez has not filed a response. We 

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 25, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40078 Document: 00514697542 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2018
No. 18-40078

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-40078 Document: 00514697542 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2018
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29953]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ES98-5-000]


Electric Energy, Inc., Notice of Application

November 7, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 3, 1997, Electric Energy, Inc. filed 
an application with the Commission seeking authorization pursuant to 
Section 204 of the Federal Power Act, to issue up to $35,000,000 of 
notes under the terms of certain unsecured revolving credit agreements 
or under substantially similar thereto from time to time over the 24-
month period immediately following the date of the Commission's 
approval of the application.
    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 385.214). All such motions 
or protests should be filed on or before December 2, 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 
available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29953 Filed 11-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1850 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 relating to the National 

Urban Security Technology Laboratory, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2021 

Miss RICE of New York (for herself and Mr. GARBARINO) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 relating to 

the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Supporting Research 

5 and Development for First Responders Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NATIONAL URBAN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY LAB7 ORATORY. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Homeland Secu9 rity Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) is amended by 

10 adding at the end the following new section: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1850 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 322. NATIONAL URBAN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY LAB2 ORATORY. 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through 

4 the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, shall 

5 designate the laboratory described in subsection (b) as an 

6 additional laboratory pursuant to the authority under sec7 tion 308(c)(2). Such laboratory shall be used to test and 

8 evaluate emerging technologies and conduct research and 

9 development to assist emergency response providers in 

10 preparing for, and protecting against, threats of terrorism. 

11 ‘‘(b) LABORATORY DESCRIBED.—The laboratory de12 scribed in this subsection is the laboratory— 

13 ‘‘(1) known, as of the date of the enactment of 

14 this section, as the National Urban Security Tech15 nology Laboratory; and 

16 ‘‘(2) transferred to the Department pursuant to 

17 section 303(1)(E). 

18 ‘‘(c) LABORATORY ACTIVITIES.—The National Urban 

19 Security Technology Laboratory shall— 

20 ‘‘(1) conduct tests, evaluations, and assess21 ments of current and emerging technologies, includ22 ing, as appropriate, the cybersecurity of such tech23 nologies that can connect to the internet, for emer24 gency response providers; 

25 ‘‘(2) act as a technical advisor to emergency re26 sponse providers; and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1850 IH

1 ‘‘(3) carry out other such activities as the Sec2 retary determines appropriate. 

3 ‘‘(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec4 tion may be construed as affecting in any manner the au5 thorities or responsibilities of the Countering Weapons of 

6 Mass Destruction Office of the Department.’’. 

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

8 in section 1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is 

9 amended by inserting after the item relating to section 

10 321 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 322. National Urban Security Technology Laboratory.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000869 17-SEP-2015 01:06 PM
J. S67031/14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COU RT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee :

: v. : : : RAYMOND CHARLES WHITE, : : Appellant : No. 655 WDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order February 24, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division No(s).: CP-02-CR-0013548-2000 BEFORE: DONOHUE, MUNDY, and FITZGERALD, * JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED MARCH 05, 2015 This matter returns to us after this panel, on Janu ary 7, 2015, 1 remanded to determine the status of appointed couns el, Patrick K. Nightingale, Esq., in light of the petition to with draw from representation he filed in the PCRA court pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super.

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Commonwealth v. White , 655 WDA 2014 (unpublished memorandum at 7) (Pa. Super. Jan. 7, 2015).

We note this is the third time this Court has addre ssed the matter of appointed counsel’s status with respect to Appellan t’s second petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. See id. ; Commonwealth v. White , 910 WDA 2012 (unpublished memorandum at 2) (Pa. Super. Jan. 28, 2013).J. S67031/14

- 2

-

1988) ( en banc ). The PCRA court has supplemented the record with an order dated and entered January 20, 2015, stating A ttorney Nightingales’ petition to withdraw “is hereby GRANTED.” Order 1/ 20/15. However, the PCRA court’s January 20, 2015 order wa s entered after Appellant perfected the underlying appeal and while this Court retained jurisdiction for the determination of Attorney Nigh tingale’s status in the appeal. See White , 655 WDA 2014 at 7-8. Moreover, there is no indic ation in the supplemental record that Attorney Nightingal e was granted leave to withdraw before this appeal. Accordingly, we consi der the January 20, 2015 order to be a nullity and strike it as such. Because Attorney Nightingale was not properly permi tted to withdraw,

we remand for a Grazier hearing, which shall be held within thirty days of this memorandum. If Appellant elects to proceed pro se in this appeal, the PCRA court shall supplement the record with its col loquy and Appellant’s waiver of the assistance of counsel. If Appellant elects to proceed with counsel, Attorney Nightingale shall, within sixty d ays of Appellant’s decision,

file an advocate’s brief or seek withdrawal in this Court by filing a petition to withdraw and an accompanying Turner / Finley no-merit letter addressing whether Appellant’s instant second petition was tim ely filed and any issues Appellant intends to raise on appeal. 2

2 The Commonwealth may file an amended or supplement al brief if Attorney Nightingale proceeds as counsel in this appeal.J. S67031/14

- 3

-

Case remanded. Order of January 20, 2015, stricken . Panel jurisdiction retained.
#### Anne PETTERSEN, Appellant, v. Gordon NELSON d/b/a American Steam and Pressure Cleaning Service, Appellee.

No. 71-948.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 20, 1972.

*23Anne Pettersen, in pro. per.

John Witt, Riviera Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida, sitting in its appellate capacity. The order of the circuit court affirmed a final judgment against the appellant rendered by the Small Claims-Magistrate Court for said county. The judgment awarded the plaintiff, Gordon Nelson, $312.00 plus costs from Anne Pettersen, the appellant here.

This court does not have jurisdiction to review by appeal an order rendered by the Circuit Court sitting in its appellate capacity. Article V, Section 5(3), Florida Constitution 1968, F.S.A. We have, however, treated the proceedings herein as a petition for common law cer-tiorari and have reviewed the order of the circuit court on that basis. The scope of such review is limited to a determination from the face of the record whether the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction or otherwise deviated from the essential requirements of law. Dresner v. City of Tallahassee, Fla.1964, 164 So.2d 208, 210.

From the record before us, it appears that the circuit court did not exceed its jurisdiction or otherwise deviate from the essential requirements of law and, therefore, certiorari is denied.

Certiorari denied.

REED, C. J., and CROSS and OWEN, JJ,, concur.
DENY and Opinion Filed May 6, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-01305-CV 

IN RE ROBERT WOLF AND AYA HEALTHCARE, INC., Relators 

Original Proceeding from the 95th District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-19865 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel 

Opinion by Justice Nowell 

In this original proceeding, relators Robert Wolf and Aya Healthcare, Inc., 

seek a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to (1) refrain from enforcing 

“Category (b)” of the November 14, 2023 order and (2) require real parties in interest 

to respond to certain interrogatories and produce the documents and witnesses 

requested in relators’ motion for expedited discovery. 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that they lack an adequate remedy by appeal. In re 

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). 
 –2– 

After reviewing the petition, real parties in interest’s response, the reply, and 

the record before us, we conclude that relators have failed to demonstrate entitlement 

to the relief requested. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a). We also lift the stay issued by our January 3, 2024 order. 

231305F.P05 

/Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1907 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1907

    To authorize the Attorney General to make grants for technical 
    assistance and training in the operation or establishment of a 
         lethality assessment program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2021

 Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Trone) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To authorize the Attorney General to make grants for technical 
    assistance and training in the operation or establishment of a 
         lethality assessment program, 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 ``Preventing Domestic Violence 
Homicides Through Assessment Training Act''.

SEC. 2. GRANTS FOR LETHALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--The Attorney General may make grants to States, 
units of local government, Indian Tribes, domestic violence victim 
service providers, and State or Tribal Domestic Violence Coalitions for 
technical assistance and training in the operation or establishment of 
a lethality assessment program.
    (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``lethality assessment 
program'' means a program that--
            (1) rapidly connects a victim of domestic violence to local 
        community-based victim service providers;
            (2) helps first responders and others in the justice 
        system, including courts, law enforcement agencies, and 
        prosecutors of Tribal government and units of local government, 
        identify and respond to possibly lethal circumstances; and
            (3) identifies victims of domestic violence who are at high 
        risk of being seriously injured or killed by an intimate 
        partner.
    (c) Qualifications.--To be eligible for a grant under this section, 
an applicant shall demonstrate experience in developing, implementing, 
evaluating, and disseminating a lethality assessment program.
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section for each of fiscal 
years 2022 through 2026.
    (e) Definitions.--Terms used in this section have the meanings 
given such terms in section 40002 of the Violence Against Women Act of 
1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291).
                                 <all>
```
----

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the 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.  |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:                                  |  /s/              Bernard Korn  |   |
|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 |                                      |   |
|                                 |                                      |   |
|                                 |                                      |   |
| Name:                                | Bernard                Korn          |   |
|                                 | Chief                Executive Officer    |   |
|                                 |                                      |   |
|                                 |                                      |   |
|                                 |                                      |   |
| August                12, 2005  |                                      |

----