alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31649]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP92-132-056]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Refund Report

November 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 24, 1997, Tennessee Gas Pipeline 
Company (Tennessee) tendered for filing the Refund Report in the 
captioned proceeding related to the period between October 1, 1994 and 
August 13, 1997.
    Tennessee states that in accordance with the Commission's directive 
in its October 23, 1997 Order in this docket that it has netted the 
amounts it is owed by Flagg under its contract for service to Flagg 
against the refunds owed. Tennessee submits that as a result of such 
netting, no refunds are owed to Flagg.
    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 Sec. 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before 
December 4, 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. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in 
Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31649 Filed 12-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

647 

KA 10-02201 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PAUL M. LARRABEE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

MARY R. HUMPHREY, NEW HARTFORD, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SCOTT D. MCNAMARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (STEVEN G. COX OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M.

Donalty, J.), rendered August 19, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree and

possession of burglar’s tools. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §

140.25 [2]) and possession of burglar’s tools (§ 140.35). Defendant

failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the legal

sufficiency of the evidence inasmuch as he made only a general motion

for a trial order of dismissal (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19),

and he failed to renew that motion after presenting evidence (see

People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61, rearg denied 97 NY2d 678). In any

event, that contention lacks merit (see generally People v Bleakley,

69 NY2d 490, 495). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of

the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342,

349), we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight

of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). 

“[R]esolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be

accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be

determined by the jury” (People v Witherspoon, 66 AD3d 1456, 1457, lv

denied 13 NY3d 942 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

We agree with defendant that County Court erred in admitting

evidence with respect to modifications made to the victim’s home after

the burglary and as to the effect of the burglary on the children who

resided in that home (see People v Kelly, 71 AD3d 1520, 1521, lv

denied 15 NY3d 775; see generally People v Scarola, 71 NY2d 769, 777). 

We note that, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s contention is

unpreserved for our review, we would nevertheless exercise our power
-2- 647 

KA 10-02201 

to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see

CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We conclude, however, that the error is harmless

inasmuch as the evidence of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming, and

there is no significant probability that defendant would have been

acquitted but for the admission of that testimony (see generally

People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242).

Entered: June 14, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Public Service Company of New HampshireExhibit 12Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges(In thousands)Six Months
EndedJune 30, 2008Year Ended December 31,Earnings, as defined:(unaudited)20072006200520042003Net income$          30,380$             54,434$             35,323$          41,739$        46,641$          45,624Income tax expense12,99722,79439,18312,23412,99329,773Equity in (earnings)/losses of 
     regional nuclear generating companies(35)(343)74(230)(165)(353)Dividends received from regional 
     equity investees-5213671726141,219Fixed charges, as below26,42850,63750,09249,75147,21147,168Less: Interest capitalized 
      (including AFUDC)(1,623)(2,985)(2,768)(1,896)(272)(552)Total earnings, as defined$          68,147$           125,058$           122,271$        101,770$      107,022$        122,879Fixed charges, as defined:Interest on long-term debt (a)$          14,999$             26,029$             24,100$          20,481$        17,441$          15,408Interest on rate reduction bonds8,23218,01320,82824,07426,90129,081Other interest8902,2438291,7331,197727Rental interest factor6841,3671,5671,5671,4001,400Interest capitalized (including AFUDC)1,6232,9852,7681,896272552Total fixed charges, as defined$          26,428$             50,637$             50,092$          49,751$        47,211$          47,168Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges2.582.472.442.052.272.61(a)
Interest on long-term debt amounts include amortized premiums, discounts and capitalized expenses related to indebtedness.
#### David DENNIS and Chester Palmer v. STATE.

No. 38070.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 12, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 214 So.2d 661.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-12-0506-CR 

________________________

JORGE MUNOZ PALACIOS, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 222nd District Court 

Deaf Smith County, Texas 

Trial Court No. CR-11L-182, Honorable Roland D. Saul, Presiding 

 

March 6, 2013 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Pending before this court is a motion to dismiss the appeal signed by both appellant 

Jorge Munoz Palacios and his attorney. Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the 

motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the 

appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant=s request, no motion for rehearing will be 

entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
1 The Honorable Maurice B. Foley, United States Tax Court Judge. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ Nos. 10-1393/10-1394

___________ Gerald W. McPeek; * Theresa A. McPeek, * * Petitioners, * * Appeals from the United States v. * Tax Court. * Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: November 19, 2010 Filed: December 2, 2010

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Geraldand Theresa McPeek challenge the tax court’s 1 adverse grants of summary judgment in their actions seeking redeterminations of their liabilities. Upon careful de novo review, see Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. Comm’r , 594 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 2010), cert. denied , 2010 WL 1777410 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2010) (No. 09-1339), we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted, see Bell v. Comm’r , 126 T.C. 356, 358 (2006) (26 U.S.C. § 6330 allows challenges to existence or amount of unde rlying liability if petitioner did not receive-2- notice of deficiency or otherwise have oppor tunity to dispute liability; this statutory preclusion is triggered by opportunity to contest underlying liability, even if opportunity is not pursued).
We further conclude that the tax court did not abuse its discretion in denying the McPeeks’ motions under Tax Court Rule 162 to vacate the summary judgment decisions, because they provi ded no evidence of unusual circumstances or substantial error. See Intermountain Ins. Serv. of Va il, Ltd. Liability Co. v. Comm’r , 134 T.C. No. 11, 2010 WL 1838297 at *3 (2010) (decision to grant motions to reconsider and to vacate lies within discretion of court; mo tions to vacate are generally not granted absent showing of unusual circumstances or substantial error, e.g., mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered eviden ce, fraud, or other reason justifying relief; comparing Rule 162 with Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). Accordingly, the judgments are affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Impurity and CAS Registry Number (a) Maximum percent

(b)Confidential CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI TS-S081UY ( CBI ) 

### Attachment 3 Page 1/1
#### Leslie D. HORTON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 73-542.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 5, 1973.

Habeas corpus denied.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 230 (Monday, December 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31458]

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

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

Budget Analysis Branch; Sequestration Final Report

AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget--Budget Analysis Branch.

ACTION: Notice of transmittal of Final Sequestration Report to the 
President and Congress.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 254(b) of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Control Act of 1985, as amended, the Office of Management and 
Budget hereby reports that it has submitted its Final Sequestration 
Report to the President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
and the President of the Senate.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alicia Kolaian, Budget Analysis 
Branch--202/395-4575.

    Dated: November 26, 1997.
Sarah B. Richardson,
Public Information Officer, Office of Management and Budget.
[FR Doc. 97-31458 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P
```
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jorge Zalazar

- Franco

, * From the 39 th District Court

of Haskell County

Trial Court No. 6877

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 045

- CR * February 13 , 20 20

The Sta te of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Stretcher , J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.

, Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 197 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 197

  To amend the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 to improve reporting 
    about animal testing and alternative test method use by Federal 
                   agencies, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 2021

   Mr. Calvert (for himself, Mr. Mast, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Buchanan, Ms. 
   Brownley, and Ms. Titus) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 to improve reporting 
    about animal testing and alternative test method use by Federal 
                   agencies, 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 ``Federal Accountability in Chemical 
Testing Act'' or the ``FACT Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; PROVISION OF INFORMATION.

    (a) Report Contents.--
            (1) In general.--Paragraph (7) of section 3(e) of the 
        ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285l-3(e)) is 
        amended by inserting before the period at the end of the 
        paragraph the following: ``, to include a description of the 
        progress on the development, validation, acceptance, and 
        utilization of alternative test methods (including animal use 
        data by species, number, and test type) for toxicological 
        testing conducted, supported, or required by, or submitted to, 
        each Federal agency listed in subsection (c) during the 
        reporting period''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
        applies with respect to reports that are made available to the 
        public on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of 
        enactment of this Act.
    (b) Provision of Information.--Section 4 of the ICCVAM 
Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285l-4) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
    ``(f) Provision of Information.--Each Federal agency carrying out a 
program described in subsection (a), or its specific regulatory unit or 
units, shall provide ICCVAM with information needed to carry out this 
Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31604]



[[Page 63968]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration
[Docket No. ICR-97-10]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB 
Approval

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 
announcing that a collection of information regarding the recording of 
occupational injuries and illnesses has been approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 
This document announces the OMB approval number and expiration date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen Newell, Office of Statistics, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3507, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone (202) 219-6463.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of April 22, 1997 
(62 FR 19,621), the Agency announced its intent to request renewal of 
its current OMB approval for 29 CFR 1904, Recording and Reporting 
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (less 1904.8, Reporting of Fatality 
or Multiple Hospitalization Incidents and 1904.17, Annual OSHA Injury 
and Illness Survey of Ten or More Employers). In accordance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), OMB has renewed 
its approval for the information collection and assigned OMB control 
number 1218-0176. The approval expires 12/31/1998. Under 5 CFR 
1320.5(b), an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless the 
collection displays a valid control number.

    Dated: November 25, 1997.
Stephen A. Newell,
Director, OSHA Office of Statistics.
[FR Doc. 97-31604 Filed 12-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M
#### Louis PHILMORE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-504.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 13, 1977.

Louis Philmore, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00319

- CR

NO. 02

- 11

- 00320

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

V.

DAVID WAYNE BUTLER APPELLEE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT CO URT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered the State’s “ Motion To Dismiss State's Brief Appeal

. ”

The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex.

R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been deliver ed before we

received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R.

App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: November 23 , 2011
TIME 1425 HRS

DATE 24 Feb 2015

RECORD OF CONVERSATION

NAME(S) OF PERSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONFERENCE AND LOCATION

Ray Johnson, FAA Airmen Cert ification Branch, AFS-810 Mr. Adam L. Tjelmeland, on behalf of Airborne Support Inc.

SUBJECT Request for further information, Airborne Support Petition for Exemption, dated January 15, 2015

DIGEST On 24 February, 2015, I contacted Mr. Tjelme land, President and CEO Parker Bennecorp for information need on the request for exemption (spec ifically, the aircraft type and registration numbers) On 24 February 2015, Mr. Tjelmeland re sponded with the requested information.

CONCLUSION, ACTION TAKEN, OR REQUIRED

The information provided by Mr. Tjelmeland will be used by the Federal Aviation Administration during the consideration of the petition for exemption.

Ray Johnson, AFS-810
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 11239 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
DATANYA DAMON ALEXANDER , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:17

- CR

- 437

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Datanya Damon Alexander appeals the concurrent 180

- month statutory minimum sentences imposed on his guilty plea conviction s for possession of a firearm by a felon. He argues that (1) his three Texas convictions for delivery of a controlled substance are not seri ous drug offenses for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and (2) his indictment did not specify the prior convictions that formed the basis of his

* 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 September 9, 2019 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 18-11239 Document: 00515109671 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/201918

- 11239

2 sentencing enhancement and he did not admit the facts affecting the r ange of imprisonment , making his sentences unconstitutional

. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief. As the Government argues and Alexander concedes, Alexander’ s first argument is foreclosed by United States v. Cain , 877 F.3d 562, 562

- 63 (5th Cir. 2017), and United States v. Vickers , 540 F.3d 356, 363

- 66 (5th Cir. 2008), and his second argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 22 6

- 27 (1998). Because Alexander’s arguments are foreclosed, summary affirmance is proper

. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, we GRANT the Government’s motion for summary affirmance and AFFIRM the j udgment

. We DENY, as unnecessary, t he Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a responsive brief. Case: 18-11239 Document: 00515109671 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2019
U.S. Department 

Of Transportation 

Federal Highway 

Administration

400 Seventh St., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

September 1, 1988 

Mr. Frank M. Mayer 

Madison, Wisconsin 

Your office received direct a copy of Mr. Betsold’s August 2, 1988 submittal, which 

transmitted results from recent crash testing of two large sign assemblies. Tested as 20 

and 60 MPH with an 1800 lb. Vehicle were a 15’ x 11’ sign supported by a pair of W12 x 

16 steel supports (Wis Type B) and a 22’ x 14’ sign on W12 x 22 steel supports (Wis 

Type D). Signss and supports were of conventional breakaway design with the 

significant exception of having no fuse plates. 

As Mr. Betsold’s memorandum notes, the testing shows these supports to meet all of the 

requirements of the 1985 specifications. In the absence of the fuse plate, failure at 

acceptable force levels was achieved through separation of the clip system holding the 

extruded sign panels to the W beam supports. Given developments in sign design over 

time, the torsional resistance of an extruded aluminum panel is significantly different that 

the wood or composite sign panels likely used in the earlier testing that led to the 

incorporation of a fuse plate. Blow over problems led Wisconsin to eliminate the fuse 

plate but test results would indicate greater sign damage can then be expected from actual 

roadside collisions. 

These test results have been discussed with Mr. Hatton (HNG-14). Both of our offices 

see no problems in Wisconsin’s use (or that by other States) of sign designs within the 

size parameters of the tested configurations. Important to the overall design of such sign 

systems is also replicating the tested clip and extruded panel fixation system. 

We see no questions as to the Federal-aid eligibility for such sign support systems. 

Wisconsin (without Federal-aid) over the past 10 years has acquired some actual field 

experience with this system. Given that the controlled testing is limited to four tests, 

some States may wish to initially approach application of this design through 

experimental projects. Such an approach would seem reasonable but is not mandatory. 

Further, we see no reason for States experiencing satisfactory performance with fuse 

plates to alter their designs. 

We appreciate the professional approach of WisDOT in proceeding to acquire these test 

results as well as the close cooperation by your office in assisting them. In the long term 

we expect researchers will build upon these findings to perfect multi-directional 
breakaway assemblies. State contributions from such efforts as the WisDOT funded 

testing and through pooled-fund studies will speed this process. 

 Signed, 

 

 Lionel H. Wood, Director 

 Office of Engineering & Operations 

Cc: 

HNG-14 

HSR-20