alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 230 (Monday, December 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31418]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute of Health


National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 United States Code Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of 
the following meeting:

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Deafness and Other 
Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: December 15, 1997.
    Time: 2:00 pm to adjournment.
    Place: 6120 Executive Blvd., Rockville MD 20892, (telephone 
conference call).
    Contact Person: Richard S. Fisher, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, NIDCD/DEA/SRB, EPS Room 400C, 6120 Executive 
Boulevard, Bethesda MD 20892-7180, 301-496-8683.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. The 
meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set forth 
in sections 552b(c)(4) and 553b(c)(6), Title 5, United States Code. 
The applications and/or proposals and the discussion could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.173 
Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communication Disorders)

    Dated: November 24, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield.
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-31418 Filed 11-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

LUIS CARLOS MENDEZ-LEON, a.k.a.

Luis Carlos Leon-Mendez,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-10341

D.C. No. 4:11-cr-03823-CKJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2013** 

Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Luis Carlos Mendez-Leon appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 33-month sentence for reentry after

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

FILED

OCT 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-10341

U.S. 738 (1967), Mendez-Leon’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no

grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have

provided Mendez-Leon the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro

se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Mendez-Leon waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. The government’s motion to

allow late filing of its Anders letter is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2133 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and direct the Secretary 

of the Interior to conduct a study with respect to stormwater runoff 

from oil and gas operations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2021 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT (for himself, Ms. BARRAGA ́N, Mr. BEYER, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. BONAMICI, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. COHEN, Mr. 

CONNOLLY, Ms. DEGETTE, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HASTINGS, 

Mrs. HAYES, Mr. JONES, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. 

LYNCH, Ms. MATSUI, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Ms. MENG, Mr. MORELLE, Mr. 

NADLER, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. NEGUSE, Ms. NORTON, Mr. RASKIN, 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. SHERMAN, 

Mr. SIRES, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. VARGAS, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, 

Mr. WELCH, and Mr. HUFFMAN) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and 

direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study 

with respect to stormwater runoff from oil and gas operations, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2133 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Focused Reduction of 

3 Effluence and Stormwater runoff through Hydrofracking 

4 Environmental Regulation Act of 2021’’ or the ‘‘FRESH5 ER Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM OIL, GAS, AND MIN7 ING OPERATIONS. 

8 (a) LIMITATION ON PERMIT REQUIREMENT.—Sec9 tion 402(l) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 

10 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and 

11 redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2). 

12 (b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 502 of the Federal Water 

13 Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended— 

14 (1) by striking paragraph (24); and 

15 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (25) through 

16 (27) as paragraphs (24) through (26), respectively. 

17 (c) STUDY.— 

18 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Inte19 rior shall conduct a study of stormwater impacts 

20 with respect to any area that the Secretary deter21 mines may be contaminated by stormwater runoff 

22 associated with oil or gas operations, which shall in23 clude— 

24 (A) an analysis of measurable contamina25 tion in such area; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2133 IH

1 (B) an analysis of ground water resources 

2 in such area; and 

3 (C) an analysis of the susceptibility of 

4 aquifers in such area to contamination from 

5 stormwater runoff associated with such oper6 ations. 

7 (2) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the 

8 date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 

9 submit to Congress a report on the results of studies 

10 conducted under paragraph (1). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### ROSEN v. PICKLE.

No. 38084.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31655]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-181-007]


CNG Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance Tariff Filing

November 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 21, 1997, CNG Transmission Corporation 
(CNG), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets:

1st Revised 2nd Revised Sheet No. 386
First Revised Sheet No. 386A

    CNG requests effective dates of June 1, 1997 for Sheet No. 386, and 
November 10, 1997, for Sheet No. 386A.
    CNG states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
directives of the Commission's November 12 Letter Order: to adopt 
certain GISB standards verbatim in the tariff or to add these standards 
to Section 31 of its General Terms and Conditions, and to provide a 
status report on further development of CNG's electronic communication 
systems as required by the Commission's September 15, 1997, order in 
the above-referenced proceedings.
    CNG states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all 
parties to the captioned 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 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. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31655 Filed 12-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Mark McNATT V. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50217.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 24, 1977.

Mitchell M. Lundy, Grenada, for appellant.

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

Appeal from Circuit Court, Grenada County; Clarence E. Morgan, Jr., Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
Via fax 10/12/2010 09:33 AM

Dear Ms. Cunningham:

In a written letter submitted to Assistant Administrator Stephen Owens late last week, The 

Procter & Gamble Company acknowledged receipt of EPA’s request to participate in the 

voluntary Confidential Business Information (CBI) Declassification Challenge. P&G committed 

to reviewing our internal files in a good faith effort to identify any historical CBI claims for which 

continued protection is no longer warranted.

As we begin the process of searching through our internal TSCA filings related to inventory 

status (TSCA Section 5 Notices of Commencement), TSCA 8(a) Inventory Update Rule reports, 

and health and safety study submissions made under TSCA 4, 8(d) and 8(e), we are faced with 

a daunting task of sorting through numerous paper files stored in multiple locations. Is it 

possible for EPA to provide P&G with any information and/or tools that may assist us identify the 

number and type of chemical identity CBI claims submitted to the Agency in TSCA filings over 

the last three decades? I am curious if EPA has some sort of “Master List” of P&G chemical 

identity CBI claims against which we can cross-check to sharpen the focus of our internal 

search and ensure we review all CBI claims of interest to the Agency.

I appreciate any guidance you can provide to better enable P&G to successfully comply with this 

voluntary program. I’m happy to discuss this request in greater detail, and can be reached at 

froelicher.jm@pg.com or (513) 983-2531.

Thank you,

Julie Froelicher

US Regulatory Affairs Manager

The Procter & Gamble Company

Julie Froelicher I NA MDO Regulatory & Technical Relations I The Procter & Gamble Company I P: 513.983.2531 I froelicher.jm@pg.com
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Venture Lending & Leasing VI, Inc. (the "Fund") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Maurice C. Werdegar, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Fund, 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 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 result of operations of the Fund.





/S/ Maurice C. Werdegar


Maurice C. Werdegar


President and Chief Executive Officer


March 21, 2014
#### Gaspar NAGYMIHALY and Veronica Nagymihaly, his wife, Appellants, v. Phillip P. ZIPES, Appellee.

No. 77-1500.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Quinton, Leib & Lummus and W. E. Dun-wody, III, Miami, for appellants.

Philip A. Holtsberg, Coconut Grove, Abbott and Frumkes, P.A., Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and BARK-DULL and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants, Gaspar Nagymihaly and his wife, Veronica, appeal an adverse final summary judgment in an action for specific performance of a settlement agreement.

Since June 1974 the parties to this appeal have been engaged in extensive litigation involving four lawsuits (case nos. 74-15778, 74-32455, 74-14452 and 75-14486). In case no. 75-14486 a final judgment of foreclo*944sure was entered in favor of Phillip Zipes, plaintiff-appellee, and a foreclosure sale was scheduled for July 17, 1975. Prior to the sale, the attorney for the Nagymihalys and Zipes’ attorney entered into a settlement agreement which specifically provided that cancellation of the foreclosure sale was the consideration therefor. The sale was cancelled, but the Nagymihalys failed to perform their obligations under the agreement. Subsequently, on May 27,1976 Zipes filed the instant suit to enforce the agreement. The Nagymihalys defended on the ground that their attorney acted in excess of his authority in entering into the settlement agreement on their behalf. Thereafter, Zipes moved for summary judgment and after hearing, the trial judge entered summary judgment for Zipes. We affirm.

The court may find as a matter of law that where a party accepts the benefits of a settlement or compromise of his case and he knows or in the exercise of due diligence should have known all the facts concerning that settlement (as in the case at bar), he ratifies that settlement by the acceptance of those benefits whether the settlement in the first instance was unauthorized by him or not and he is thereafter estopped to attack the settlement and the judgment entered thereon. *Mungin v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.,*318 F.Supp. 720, 735 (M.D.Fla.1970), aff’d 441 F.2d 728 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. den. 404 U.S. 897, 92 S.Ct. 203, 30 L.Ed.2d 175 (1971). See also *Branford State Bank v. Howell Co.,*88 Fla. 493, 102 So. 649 (1924) and 2 Fla.Jur.2d Agency and Employment §§ 57, 58 (1977) and cases cited therein. It is clear that the Nagymihalys ratified the settlement agreement and accepted the benefit thereunder of cancellation of the foreclosure sale which was the consideration for the agreement. In addition, they did not repudiate the agreement within a reasonable time; not until Zipes filed the instant specific performance action some 10 months after execution of the agreement and cancellation of the foreclosure sale did the Nagymihalys for the first time allege that their attorney acted in excess of his authority in executing the agreement on their behalf.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
WILLIAM J. MURPHY, certify that:

1.    I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of COMPUTER HORIZONS CORP.;

2.    Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.    Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects, the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.    The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

(a)    designed
such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;

(b)    evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)    disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting;

5.    The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)    all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)    any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.

|Date:                                                          |  | January 21, 2004 |  |  |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------- |  |  |  | 
|/s/ William J. MurphyWILLIAM J. MURPHY
Chief Executive Officer |  |                  |  | 

---

QuickLinks
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 21, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 21, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15A2348. SHIRLEY MARTIN et al. v. JASON BILLINGHURST et al..

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1998
<CASH>                                          52,863
<SECURITIES>                                    13,293
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,190
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               194,854
<PP&E>                                          21,279
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,090
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 283,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,500
<BONDS>                                          1,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,220
<OTHER-SE>                                     227,690
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   283,650
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               371,880
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  236,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                84,082
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,810)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,566
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,574
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,992
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,992
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.93
        

</TABLE>
Subject: Announcement Regarding Waiver of the Auditor Attestation - Fiscal Year 2022. 

Dear ECIP Participant:

For the Participant’s fiscal year 2022, ECIP is waiving the requirement in Section 4.1(d)(ii) of the 

ECIP Securities Purchase Agreement for certain ECIP participants to submit an attestation from 

their independent auditor that the processes and controls used to generate the Supplemental 

Reports are satisfactory. As a result, ECIP Participants are no longer required to submit the 

auditor attestation for fiscal year 2022, if the Participant was otherwise required to do so. 

ECIP remains actively engaged with ECIP participants, auditors and other stakeholders on the 

issues and concerns that have been raised as it relates to the auditor attestation. 

Please contact ecip@treasury.gov with any questions. 

The ECIP team
257 La. 277

#### C. I. T. CORPORATION v. J. B. LEE TRACTOR & IMPLEMENT COMPANY, Inc., et al.

No. 51045.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 1971.

In re: C. I. T. Corporation applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 240 So.2d 747.

Writ denied. The result is correct.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.

GLADNEY, J., dissents from denial of writ.
#### James Richard WETTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-502.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 14, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10053 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHRISTIAN ALFONSO QUINTANILLA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-63-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Christian Alfonso Quintanilla raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
County of Galveston

Grant Administration Department

The County’s proposed use of ARPA funds is to assist its Citizens with programs 

promoting health, safety, community need and overall quality of life for all. The 

County’s approach is multi-faceted, promoting sensible programs with outcomes 

for individuals with different and changing needs. Improvements are intended and 

planned that will assist individuals and communities that are struggling during the 

pandemic.

.

The County’s ARPA program, still in a very early stage, with some areas in final 

development are outlined below in a high-level draft, including a general 

distribution plan:

Funding Distribution:

 Public Health/Covid Response

$16,000.000.00

 Public Safety

$4,000,000.00

 Building and Facility Projects

$15,000,000.00

 Sewer & Storm Water Infrastructure Improvements

$25,500,000.00

 Parks Projects

$500,000.00

 Essential Worker Pay

$3,453,100.00

 Economic Development/Non Profit Programs

$2,000,000.00

In conjunction with ARPA, the County has launched an $8M ERA2 program, 

utilizing a community non-profit to further enhance and complement our ARPA 

programs.

 Denotes a funding expenditure category per SLFRF