alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32358]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 97F-0504]

The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.; Filing of Food Additive 
Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the 
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. has filed a petition proposing that the 
food additive regulations be amended to provide for the expanded safe 
use of butylated reaction product of p-cresol and dicyclopentadiene for 
use as an antioxidant in acrylonitrile/butadiene/styrene copolymers in 
contact with food.

 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hortense S. Macon, Center for Food 
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-205), Food and Drug Administration, 
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3086.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food 
additive petition (FAP 8B4561) has been filed by The Goodyear Tire and 
Rubber Co., c/o Keller and Heckman LLP, 1001 G St. NW., suite 500 West, 
Washington, DC 20001. The petition proposes to amend the food additive 
regulations in Sec. 178.2010 Antioxidants and/or stabilizers for 
polymers (21 CFR 178.2010) to provide for the expanded safe use of 
butylated reaction product of p-cresol and dicyclopentadiene for use as 
an antioxidant in acrylonitrile/butadiene/styrene copolymers in contact 
with food.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(i) that this action is 
of the type that does not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

    Dated: December 2, 1997.
Alan M. Rulis,
Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 97-32358 Filed 12-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
```
#### Odina L. ATCHISON, etc. v. William Clyde HORTON et al.

SC 2035.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 6, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1977.

Lanny S. Vines of Emond & Vines, Benjamin B. Spratling, III of McMillan & Sprat-ling, Birmingham, John A. Taber of Williamson & Taber, Greenville, for appellants.

W. Gerald Stone and James B. Kierce, Jr. of Stone, Patton & Kierce, Bessemer, for appellees.

FAULKNER, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, dismissing a wrongful death suit against co-employees. We affirm.

On May 14, 1975, Ben Atchison was electrocuted while working in the scope of his employment. On February 10, 1976, Odina Atchison, wife of the decedent, brought a wrongful death suit against five of his coworkers for negligently failing to provide the decedent with a reasonably safe place to work and with reasonably safe equipment for work. The co-workers filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, in particular, Title 26, § 312 of the Code of Alabama 1940, as amended 1973. Atchison claimed that § 312, as it existed prior to the 1975 amendment, permitted suits against a co-employee as a third party. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Atchison appeals this order.

There are two issues: (1) whether the 1973 amendment to Tit. 26, § 312 of the Code of Alabama as it appeared in the 1973 cumulative supplement was validly enacted, and (2) whether the 1975 amendment to Tit. 26, § 312 of the Code of Alabama was *1359applicable to a cause of action which arose shortly before the amendment was passed and on which suit was filed shortly after the amendment was passed.

As to the first issue of whether the 1973 amendment was validly enacted, we follow the holding of *Childers v. Couey,*Ala., 348 So.2d 1349, rendered this date by this court, and hold that it was.

Because we hold that the 1973 amendment was validly enacted and, thus, co-employees could not be sued, we need not decide the second issue as to the retrospective application of the 1975 amendment.

The order of the trial court dismissing the action is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH and EMBRY, JJ., concur.

ALMON, J., concurs in the result.

MADDOX, JONES, SHORES and BEAT-TY, JJ., dissent.

MADDOX, Justice

(dissenting).

I joined Justice Shores’ dissent in *Childers v. Couey,*Ala., 348 So.2d 1349 [released May 6,1977]. I adhere to the same views in this case.

JONES, Justice

(dissenting).

The reasons for my dissent are stated in my dissenting opinion in *Childers v. Couey,*Ala., 348 So.2d 1349 [released May 6,1977],
In 2007, Capital One Bank® established its first student-run bank branch in New York. Today, students 

in New York, New Jersey, and Maryland high schools are participating in the program and furthering their 

understanding and experience with real-world money management. 

Student bankers are responsible for all aspects of running a bank as well as teaching their peers the 

importance of budgeting and saving. With guidance from Capital One Bank management and through 

partnerships with local universities, the high school bankers are improving their readiness for college and 

future careers. We’re proud to report that nearly all of the former student bankers have gone on to college 

and have reported better financial management skills and a greater ability to advise others. 

FACT SHEET

capitalone.com/investingforgood
Parents, teachers, administrators, and elected officials 

recognize the importance of the program:

“We have a partner who is visionary in understanding 

contributions they can make. This is a time when we are 

leaving the days when banks were abandoning our inner 

cities and abandoning our communities. Now they are 

making partnerships, and Capital One is leading the way.”

— U.S. Senator Cory Booker 

“This has given me a second chance in life. If it wasn’t for 

the program, I would have dropped out of high school.” 

— Former Student Banker, Theodore Roosevelt Campus, 

Bronx, New York

• Offering a limited menu of products designed primarily for student savers, student-run bank branches 

operate three days a week for approximately 3.5 hours per day, and are managed by Capital One Bank 

associates. Branch services are available to students, administrators, and teachers. 

• Each in-school branch is staffed by 10-12 high school seniors. To prepare for their work, student-bankers 

work during the summer at Capital One Bank branches to obtain hands-on experience as tellers and 

customer service representatives. The students spend two weeks in formal teller training at a Capital 

One Bank training center and complete financial education classes.

• Student bankers participate in a week-long, university-based college development program where they 

begin planning for the college application process.

• Promote sound money management skills

• Provide critical life skills training

• Connect students to banking professionals for mentoring opportunities

• Develop career awareness and work readiness skills

• Influence academic achievements by providing college 

preparatory guidance

Program Details

Program Objectives

Student Bank Branch Locations

Testimonials

Capital One is an equal opportunity employer. ©2014 Capital One. All rights reserved. 

Capital One Bank currently operates four in-school bank branches:

• Theodore Roosevelt Campus – Bronx, NY

• West Side High School – Newark, NJ

• Thurgood Marshall Academy – Harlem, NY

• Parkdale High School – Prince George’s County, MD
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF LOSS AND ACCUMULATED DEFICIT AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED 
06/30/97.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        06/30/97
<PERIOD-END>                             06/30/97
<CASH>                                       4837
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4837
<PP&E>                                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             194092
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       62508
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                304257
<COMMON>                                   233493
<OTHER-SE>                                (406166)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               194092
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              950
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               48097
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (47147)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (47147)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7351

JAMES W. WATERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, Greensville Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-01-432)

Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 19, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James W. Waters, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James W. Waters seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Waters v. Warden, No. CA-01-432

(W.D. Va. July 13, 2001). 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6685

VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

G. WASHINGTON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-04-624-3-RLW)

Submitted: September 19, 2005 Decided: September 30, 2005

Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Eugene Williams seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) and his motion to reconsider. An appeal may not be

taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. 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
#### A. E. ANDERSON, Jr. et al., Petitioners, v. J. C. BOWEN, Respondent. A. E. ANDERSON, Jr. et al., Petitioners, v. J. C. BOWEN, Administrator of the Estate of Carita Mava Bowen, deceased, Respondent.

Nos. M-399, M-400.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 27, 1971.

James C. Rinaman, Jr., of Marks, Gray, Yates, Conroy & Gibbs, and Boyd, Jener-ette & Leemis, Jacksonville, for petitioners.

Chandler, O’Neal, Carlisle, Avera, Gray & Lang, Gainesville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners, insurance companies, seek a writ of certiorari directed to the trial court for the purpose of reviewing an interlocutory order denying their respective motions to dismiss the complaints against them. The writ is denied and the petitions *494are hereby dismissed on the authority of Beta Eta House Corporation v. Gregory, 230 So.2d 495 (Fla.App. 1st 1970) and Beta Eta House Corp., Inc. of Tallahassee v. Gregory, 237 So.2d 163 (Fla.1970).

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., RAWLS, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20626

Conference Calendar

 

GEORGE O'BRIEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PHILLIP, Sheriff Deputy; HARRIS COUNTY;

HARRIS COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR/DIRECTOR,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CV-2760

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

October 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George O'Brien, Texas prisoner number 900306, appeals from

the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to

state a claim. O'Brien argues that under federal law he was not

required to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to his

claim that defendant Phillip used excessive force against him by

shoving him down a staircase. However, the Supreme Court has
No. 02-20626

-2-

held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion

requirement in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) does apply to suits alleging

excessive force. See Porter v. Nussle, 122 S. Ct. 983, 992

(2002). O'Brien has not adequately briefed a claim that he did

exhaust his administrative remedies. See Yohey v. Collins, 985

F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A).

O'Brien has not challenged the district court's denial of

relief on his claim that he was denied inadequate medical care. 

Accordingly, that issue is deemed abandoned. See Yohey, 985 F.2d

at 224-25; Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

AFFIRMED.
`[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 1997)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 67547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33838]



[[Page 67545]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part X





The President





_______________________________________________________________________



Memorandum of December 19, 1997--Delegation of Authority Under Section 
1212 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 
(Public Law 105-85)
 
 
                         Presidential Documents 
 
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / 
Presidential Documents  

 ___________________________________________________________________

 Title 3--
 The President

[[Page 67547]]

                Memorandum of December 19, 1997

                
Delegation of Authority Under Section 1212 of the 
                National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 
                (Public Law 105-85)

                Memorandum for the Secretary of Commerce

                By virtue of the authority vested in me by the 
                Constitution and laws of the United States of America, 
                including section 301 of title 3 of the United States 
                Code, I hereby delegate the functions and authorities 
                conferred upon the President by section 1212 of the 
                National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 
                (Public Law 105-85) to the Secretary of Commerce, who 
                is authorized to redelegate these functions and 
                authorities consistent with applicable law.

                Any reference in this memorandum to the provision of 
                any Act shall be deemed to include references to any 
                hereafter-enacted provision of law that is the same or 
                substantially the same as such provision.

                You are authorized and directed to published this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, December 19, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97-33838
Filed 12-23-97; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3510-BP-M`
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our reports dated February 25, 2008, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule and management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of K•Swiss Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of saidreports in the Registration Statements of K•Swiss Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-36505, effective August 23, 1990, File No. 33-77258, effective April 4, 1994, File No. 33-95650, effective August 10, 1995, FileNo. 333-79641, effective May 28, 1999, File No. 333-91864, effective July 7, 2002 and File No. 333-122955, effective February 23, 2005) and on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-37895, effective October 17, 1997 and FileNo. 333-60043, effective August 5, 1998). 

 

/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP 

 

Los Angeles, California 

February 25, 2008
#### INTERVEST, INC., Randolph Y. Matheny, G. S. Coble and Bruce E. Clary, Appellants, v. AMCAR, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 76-1897.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 15, 1977.

William L. Eagan of Arnold, Matheny & Eagan, P. A., Orlando, for appellants.

Vernon Swartsel of Anderson & Rush, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellee, Amcar, Inc., recovered a judgment against the appellants on a note. By an affirmative defense the appellants claimed the note was satisfied as part of a settlement agreement made between the parties on an underlying transaction. On trial the court found against the appellants on this issue and awarded the appellee a judgment on the note. We find that the judgment of the trial court is supported by the record and the judgment is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Ray Garrett EAGLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-658.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 6, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; John Ferris, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33520]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-16-001]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

December 18, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 11, 1997, Tennessee Gas Pipeline 
Company (Tennessee) tendered for filing, in compliance with the 
Commission's order of November 26, 1997, its Sub Fifth Revised Sheet 
No. 204, to be effective December 1, 1997, along with responses to the 
Commission's requests for information and further clarification 
regarding the tariff modifications at issue in this proceeding.
    Tennessee states that Sub Fifth Revised Sheet No. 204 is filed to 
clarify that Maximum Allowed Volume (MAV) overrun penalties will be 
applied only to deliveries made after the eight-hour notice period 
ends. In addition, this revised tariff sheet specifies how Tennessee 
will notify its shippers of MAV enforcement when such notices are 
issued after normal business hours or on weekends. Tennessee states 
that the information submitted with the tariff sheets is provided in 
response to the Commission's directive in the November 26 order for 
additional information regarding modifications to Tennessee's Rate 
Schedules FS and IS.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed 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.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-33520 Filed 12-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# JanandFeb
#### Joseph FARROW, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 72-935.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 16, 1972.

Habeas corpus denied.