alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6265-6266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3303]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[OR-036-07-1220-04: GP7-0086]

Prohibited Acts in Owyhee National Wild and Scenic River Area

AGENCY: Vale District, Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to closures and restrictions within the 
boundaries of the Main Owyhee River as established in the Main, West 
Little and North Fork Owyhee National Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 
Plan. Refer to Federal Register Notice Vol. 59, No. 240 dated Thursday, 
December 15, 1994.

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

SUMMARY: The Vale District is amending 2 closures or restrictions that 
were initiated as part of the implementation of the 1993 Main, West 
Little and North Fork Owyhee National Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 
Plan. One change is made to incorporate the original intent of 
requiring all float boaters to carry a firepan, and the other is to 
allow

[[Page 6266]]

motorized watercraft access only in that portion of the Wild and Scenic 
River that is the recognized ``slack water'' of the Owyhee Reservoir 
(approximately 4 miles upstream from the existing boundary). The 
amended closures or restrictions are the minimum necessary to protect 
and enhance ORVs and are consistent with the approved plan. Pursuant to 
43 CFR 8351.2-1, the following acts are prohibited on all public lands 
within the boundaries at the Owyhee River component of the National 
Wild and Scenic River System administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management:
    Violation of these prohibitions is punishable by a fine of not more 
than $500 or imprisonment for not more than 6 months or both. (Title 16 
U.S.C. 1281).
    1. Fire.
    a. Failure, on any float trip, to carry and use a firepan or 
similar device to contain campfires.
    4. Boating.
    a. Operation of any motor-driven (including electric motor-driven) 
watercraft upstream of T.26S., R.43E., section 29 NE\1/4\ SW\1/4\ SE\1/
4\.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathi Wilbanks, Bureau of Land 
Management, Vale District, 100 Oregon Street, Vale, OR 97918, 
(Telephone 541-473-3144).
Lynn P. Findley,
Assistant District Manager, Operations.
[FR Doc. 97-3303 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3749]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96-ACE-19]


Amendment to Class E Airspace, Olathe, KS; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the state identifier, 
geographic coordinates, and navigational aid designation of a final 
rule that was published in the Federal Register on November 19, 1996 
(61 FR 58783), Airspace Docket No. 96-ACE-19. The Final Rule amended 
the Class E airspace area at Johnson County Executive Airport, Olathe, 
KS.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 27, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Operations Branch, ACE-530C, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 601 E. 12th St., Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: 
(816) 426-3408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Federal Register Document 96-29595, Airspace Docket No. 96-ACE-19, 
published on November 19, 1996 (61 FR 58783), revised the description 
of the Class E airspace area at Olathe, KS. An error was discovered in 
the state identifier, geographic coordinates and navigational aid 
designation for the Olathe, KS, Class E airspace area. This action 
corrects that error.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Class E 
airspace area at Olathe, KS, as published in the Federal Register on 
November 19, 1996 (61 FR 58783), (Federal Register Document 96-29595; 
page 58784, column 1) is corrected to read as follows:


Sec. 71.71  [Corrected]

* * * * *

ACE KS E5 Olathe, KS [Corrected]

Johnson County Executive Airport, Olathe, KS
    (lat. 38 deg.50'51''N., long. 94 deg.44'15''W.)
Johnson County VOR/DME
    (lat. 38 deg.50'26''N., long. 94 deg.44'12''W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface 
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Johnson County Executive Airport and 
within 2.2 miles each side of the Johnson County VOR/DME 184 deg. 
radial extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 7 miles south of the 
airport.
* * * * *
    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on January 17, 1997.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division Central Region.
[FR Doc. 97-3749 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 23, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00543

- CR

Billy Ray Byers, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JU STICES PEMBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay cos ts, no adjudicati on of costs

is made.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7140 

To prohibit the use of funds for an explosive nuclear weapons test. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 8, 2020 

Ms. TITUS (for herself, Mr. HORSFORD, Mr. BEYER, Ms. GABBARD, Mr. 

GALLEGO, Mr. HECK, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. MCGOVERN, 

Ms. LEE of California, and Mr. RUSH) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of funds for an explosive nuclear weapons 

test. 

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 ‘‘Preserving Leadership 

5 Against Nuclear Explosives Testing Act’’ or the ‘‘PLAN6 ET Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR NUCLEAR 

8 WEAPONS TEST EXPLOSIONS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—None of the funds authorized to 

10 be appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7140 IH

1 2021, or authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made 

2 available for any fiscal year before fiscal year 2021 and 

3 available for obligation as of the date of the enactment 

4 of this Act, may be obligated or expended to conduct or 

5 make preparations for any explosive nuclear weapons test 

6 that produces any yield. 

7 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Subsection (a) does 

8 not limit nuclear stockpile stewardship activities that are 

9 consistent with the zero-yield standard and other require10 ments under law. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (1)

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the following certification is being made to
accompany the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
April 29, 2006:

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Del Global Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 29, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter
F. Schneider, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
         as amended; and

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

                                    /s/ Walter F. Schneider
                                    ---------------------------
                                    Name: Walter F. Schneider
                                    Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                    Date: June 19, 2006

     (1) A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
         been provided to Del Global Technologies Corp and will be retained by
         Del Global Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
         Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
         U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as
         a separate disclosure document.
```
#### Daniel Steve DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. HOWE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-17057.

D.C. No. CV-97-02386-WBS/GGH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 16, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California prisoner Daniel Steve Dixon appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The undisputed facts establish that defendants responded to Dixon’s request for medical treatment by promptly sched*275uling him for a doctor’s appointment, referring him to a cardiologist for further evaluation, and performing surgery to replace a defective aortic valve. The district court therefore properly concluded that Dixon’s showing of a difference of medical opinion was insufficient as a matter of law to establish deliberate indifference. *See Jackson v. McIntosh,*90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th ' Cir.1996).

Dixon’s contention that Dr. Flohr interfered with his medical treatment by referring him to another cardiologist for a second opinion after Dr. Dassah recommended cardiac catheterization also amounts only to a difference in opinion about the proper course of treatment. *See id.*

The district court properly concluded that any delay Dixon experienced before seeing a specialist did not constitute deliberate indifference because Dixon failed to demonstrate that the delay caused him any harm. *See Berry v. Bunnell,*39 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). Moreover, Dixon failed to present evidence to refute defendants’ contention that the delay he experienced was comparable to that typical in the medical community. *See Taylor v. List,*880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989).

The district court also properly found that Dixon failed to present evidence that any defendants were unqualified to render medical decisions. *See id.*

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting summary judgment without allowing Dixon the opportunity to conduct additional discovery because he failed to demonstrate how additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. *See Panatronic v. AT&T Corp.,*287 F.3d 840, 846 (9th Cir. 2002).

We have considered Dixon’s remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Order entered August 1, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00913-CR

ANTHONY BEANS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-72079-Y

ORDER

In this case, appellant raises an issue related to the costs assessed against him. The 

record, however, does not contain a cost bill or other document with an itemized list of costs 

assessed in this case.

Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN 

DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization 

of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court

appointed attorney fees. In accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 103.001, 

the cost bill shall be signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to 

receive payment for the cost. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s record include a 
document explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court 

appointed attorney fee.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary 

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal 

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7236 

To allow the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to establish a research center for deep space and interplanetary 

research, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2020 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To allow the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration to establish a research center for 

deep space and interplanetary research, 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 ‘‘Space Research Inno5 vation Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7236 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESEARCH CENTER FOR DEEP-SPACE AND INTER2 PLANETARY RESEARCH. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of the Na4 tional Aeronautics and Space Administration, using the 

5 authority under section 2304(c)(3)(B) of title 10, United 

6 States Code, shall— 

7 (1) establish a university-affiliated research 

8 center to facilitate capabilities in support of the Na9 tional Aeronautics and Space Administration; 

10 (2) use such a university-affiliated research cen11 ter to fund analyses and engineering support related 

12 to cis-lunar and deep-space missions and interplan13 etary research; and 

14 (3) ensure such a university-affiliated research 

15 center— 

16 (A) is held accountable for the technical 

17 quality of the work product developed under 

18 this section; and 

19 (B) has established expertise in convening 

20 academic and private sector groups to facilitate 

21 research and private-public partnerships. 

22 (b) POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.—The Adminis23 trator shall develop and implement policies and procedures 

24 to govern, with respect to the establishment of the univer25 sity-affiliated research center under subsection (a)— 

26 (1) the selection of participants; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7236 IH

1 (2) the award of cooperative agreements or 

2 other contracts; 

3 (3) the appropriate use of competitive awards 

4 and sole source awards; and 

5 (4) the technical capabilities required. 

6 (c) ELIGIBILITY.—The following entities shall be eli7 gible to participate in a university-affiliated research cen8 ter established under subsection (a)— 

9 (1) an institution of higher education (as de10 fined in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 

11 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)); 

12 (2) an operator of a federally funded research 

13 and development center; and 

14 (3) a nonprofit or not-for-profit research insti15 tution. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3822]


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

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION


Environmental Impact Statement; Public Meeting; Availability 
Washington, D.C. Convention Center, Construction and Operation

AGENCY: National Capital Planning Commission.

SUMMARY: The National Capital Planning Commission (Commission) 
announces the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
(DEIS) prepared by the Commission and the District of Columbia 
Government as part of the requirements for Commission consideration of 
a proposed Urban Renewal Plan modification and site and building plans 
for the proposed construction and operation of a Convention Center in 
Downtown Washington, D.C. The DEIS analyzes impacts on land use, the 
environment, transportation and historic and cultural resources as well 
as socio-economic impacts of three proposed alternatives. These 
alternatives include: (1) The Mount Vernon Square site (bounded by K, 
7th, 9th and N Streets, NW.); (2) Northeast No. 1 (generally between 
First Street, NE. and the railroad track); and (3) a No Action 
Alternative which would result in no new construction.
    In addition, a public meeting will be held to elicit public 
comments on the DEIS prior to the issuance of a final EIS. That meeting 
will also serve as part of the public consultation process required by 
the National Historic Preservation Act.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 18, 1997 at 
the D.C. Convention Center at 900 9th St. NW., beginning at 7:30 p.m. 
Parties interested in speaking at that time, should contact the 
Commission at (202) 482-7200. Speakers will be recognized in the order 
that they call. In addition, individuals may sign up to speak at the 
door.
    All written comments on issues regarding the environmental review 
of the proposed Convention Center must be postmarked by March 31, 1997 
and sent to the National Capital Planning Commission, 801 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Suite 301, Washington, D.C. 20576. Attention: Maurice 
Foushee, Community Planner, Phone (202) 482-7240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Ms. Sandra H. Shapiro, 
General Counsel at (202) 482-7223.
Sandra H. Shapiro,
General Counsel, National Capital Planning Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-3822 Filed 2-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7502-02-M
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60635

Summary Calendar

MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ KHAN,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A079 008 104

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Muhammad Sarfraz Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, was ordered

removed in 2005. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed and denied

reconsideration, and we rejected Khan’s petition for review. Khan v. Gonzales,

243 F. App’x 24, 25 (5th Cir. 2007). Two years after the removal order, Khan

filed a motion to reopen asserting ineffective assistance of counsel and changed

circumstances. The BIA denied the motion as untimely and refused to exercise

its authority to reopen sua sponte. We dismissed Khan’s petition for review in

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 28, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-60635 Document: 00511156476 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2010
No. 09-60635

part because we lacked jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s discretionary denial of

a motion to reopen sua sponte. Khan v. Holder, 311 F. App’x 718, 718-19 (5th

Cir. 2009).

Khan has now filed a second motion to reopen, again asserting ineffective

assistance of counsel and changed circumstances. The BIA denied this motion

as untimely and number-barred and once more declined to exercise its authority

to reopen proceedings sua sponte. Khan now seeks our review, reasserting the

claims he made previously that the time and number limitations for motions to

reopen may be excused based on ineffective assistance of counsel and his

changed circumstances.

It is undisputed that Khan’s motion is both untimely and numerically

barred. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA may

reopen a matter sua sponte at any time but the decision to do so is entirely

within its discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). As we previously explained, we lack

jurisdiction to review the BIA’s wholly discretionary decision to refuse to reopen

Khan’s proceedings sua sponte. See Khan, 311 F. App’x at 719; Ramos-Bonilla

v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 220 (5th Cir. 2008); Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft,

371 F.3d 246, 249-50 (5th Cir. 2004). To the extent that Khan argues that the

denial of the motion to reopen violates his due process rights, he has no

constitutionally protected interest in discretionary relief. See Altamirano-Lopez

v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 550 (5th Cir. 2006).

For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS Khan’s petition in part and we

DENY it in part. We DENY the Government’s motion for summary affirmance

and, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief, as unnecessary.

Finally, we CAUTION Khan that future repetitive or frivolous filings may result

in the imposition of sanctions.

2

Case: 09-60635 Document: 00511156476 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                 678,569
<SECURITIES>                           956,489
<RECEIVABLES>                        4,860,082
<ALLOWANCES>                           161,730
<INVENTORY>                          6,399,840
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    13,152,112
<PP&E>                               8,803,493
<DEPRECIATION>                       2,957,538
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      22,957,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                6,310,345
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                               881,391
<OTHER-SE>                          13,607,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        22,957,868
<SALES>                             40,765,429
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    40,765,429
<CGS>                               31,963,021
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       37,279,308
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        50,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      51,160
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      3,384,961
<INCOME-TAX>                         1,279,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  2,105,961
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                         2,105,961
<EPS-BASIC>                             0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.59


</TABLE>