alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4945]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation Service


Proposed Changes in the NRCS National Handbook of Conservation 
Practices for Review and Comment

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department 
of Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed changes in the NRCS National 
Handbook of Conservation Practices for review and comment.

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

SUMMARY: It is the intention of NRCS to issue a series of new or 
revised conservation practice standards in its National Handbook of 
Conservation Practices. These standards include Contour Buffer Strips 
(332), Filter Strips (393A), Tree/Shrub Pruning (660A), Riparian Forest 
Buffer (391A), and Manure Transfer (634). NRCS State Conservationist' s 
who choose to adopt these practices for use within their state will 
incorporate them into Section IV of their Field Office Technical Guide 
(FOTG). Some of these practices may be used in conservation systems 
that treat highly erodible land or on land determined to be wetland.

DATES: Comments will be received on or before April 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Submit individual inquiries in writing 
to Gary Nordstrom, Director, Ecological Sciences Division (ECS), 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), P.O. Box 2890, Room 
6154-S, Washington, DC 20013-2890.
    Single copies of these standards are available from NRCS-ECS in 
Washington, DC. Copies are also available electronically from the NRCS 
server at Fort Worth, Texas. The name of the server is 
ftp.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov. Practice standards appear as files in /pub/nhcp/
pending. Practice code numbers are used as file names in this 
subdirectory. These standards are available as MS Word 6.0 files. They 
should be downloaded from the FTP server as binary files.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 requires the NRCS to make available 
for public review and comment proposed revisions to conservation 
practice standards used to carry out the highly erodible land and 
wetland provisions of the law. For the next 60 days the NRCS will 
receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that 
period a determination will be made by the NRCS regarding disposition 
of those comments and a final determination of change will be made.
Gary R. Nordstrom,
Director, Ecological Sciences Division, Natural Resources Conservation 
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-4945 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3788

___________

Maxine D. King, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Michael Leavitt, Secretary, Department * District of Minnesota.

of Health and Human Services; *

Healthpartners, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 14, 2005 

Filed: December 16, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This action for review of an administrative claim for Medicare benefits was

brought by Maxine King (King), who died in August 2003. King’s daughter, Peggy

Anderson (Anderson), has filed a motion to be substituted as the appellant. Anderson
1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L.

Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

argues this appeal from the district court’s1

 adverse judgment is not moot. Following

careful review, we disagree.

Anderson does not seek monetary relief or reimbursement, but rather seeks to

challenge (1) the finding that King was not entitled to coverage under the Medicare

Act for skilled nursing care during some period in the past, and (2) the

constitutionality of certain provisions of the Medicare Act. Both issues were mooted

by King’s death, and an exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here. See

Iowa Prot. & Advocacy Servs. v. Tanager, Inc., 427 F.3d 541, 544 (8th Cir. 2005)

(“To come within [the capable of repetition, yet evading review] exception, . . . there

must be a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected

to the same action again, and . . . the challenged action must be of a duration too short

to be fully litigated before becoming moot.”); Schutz v. Thorne, 415 F.3d 1128, 1138

(10th Cir. 2005) (quoting County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979))

(“Constitutional mootness exists ‘when the issues presented are no longer “live” or

the parties lack a legally congnizable interest in the outcome.’”). In addition,

Anderson lacks standing–in her own right or as her deceased mother’s representative–

to pursue this appeal on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries in general. See Lujan v.

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the pending motion is denied.

______________________________
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 73 

To terminate the designation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a major 

non-NATO ally, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

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

on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To terminate the designation of the Islamic Republic of 

Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally, 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. TERMINATION OF DESIGNATION OF THE IS4 LAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AS A MAJOR 

5 NON-NATO ALLY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Effective beginning on the date 

7 of the enactment of this Act— 

8 (1) the designation of the Islamic Republic of 

9 Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally pursuant to 

10 section 517(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 73 IH

1 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321k(a)(1)) or any other provi2 sion of law is hereby terminated; and 

3 (2) the President may not issue a separate des4 ignation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a 

5 major non-NATO ally pursuant to section 517(a)(1) 

6 of such Act or any other provision of law unless the 

7 President submits to Congress a certification de8 scribed in subsection (b). 

9 (b) CERTIFICATION.—A certification described in this 

10 subsection is a certification that contains a determination 

11 of the President that— 

12 (1) Pakistan continues to conduct military oper13 ations that are contributing to significantly dis14 rupting the safe haven and freedom of movement of 

15 the Haqqani Network in Pakistan; 

16 (2) Pakistan has taken steps to demonstrate its 

17 commitment to prevent the Haqqani Network from 

18 using any Pakistani territory as a safe haven; 

19 (3) the Government of Pakistan actively coordi20 nates with the Government of Afghanistan to re21 strict the movement of militants, such as the 

22 Haqqani Network, along the Afghanistan-Pakistan 

23 border; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 73 IH

1 (4) Pakistan has shown progress in arresting 

2 and prosecuting Haqqani Network senior leaders 

3 and mid-level operatives. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### William Vega et al., Appellants, v Pasquale LaPalorcia, Respondent.

[722 NYS2d 563]

—In an action to recover dam*624ages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Garry, J.), dated January 13, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion to preclude them from offering expert witness testimony at trial, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered April 10, 2000, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the motions are denied, the order dated January 13, 2000, is vacated, the complaint is reinstated, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Upon retaining an expert witness six weeks before the scheduled commencement of trial, the plaintiffs immediately served the defendant with a notice pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d). The plaintiffs later served the defendant with a supplemental response further detailing the expected testimony of their expert. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs did not intentionally or willfully fail to comply with CPLR 3101 (d), and the defendant was not prejudiced. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in precluding the plaintiffs’ expert from testifying at trial *(see, McCluskey v Shapiro,*273 AD2d 284; *Davis v City of New York,*273 AD2d 342; *Cutsogeorge v Hertz Corp.,*264 AD2d 752).

The Supreme Court also improperly restricted the plaintiffs’ direct examination of the defendant. It is well settled that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action may call as a witness the defendant doctor and question him or her as an expert witness *(see, McDermott v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp.,*15 NY2d 20; *Braun v Ahmed,*127 AD2d 418, 420; *Segreti v Putnam Community Hosp.,*88 AD2d 590, 592). Accordingly, the court should have permitted the plaintiffs’ attorney to fully examine the defendant doctor regarding alleged departures from accepted medical practice and the issue of informed consent.

Since the plaintiffs were prejudiced by the preclusion of the *625testimony of their expert witness and the curtailment of their examination of the defendant doctor, a new trial is granted. Altman, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund X, Ltd. at December  31,  1999,  and its  statement  of
income for the twelve  months  then ended and is  qualified  in its  entirety by
reference  to the Form 10-K of CNL Income  Fund X, Ltd.  for the  twelve  months
ended December 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         967,094
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  223,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                   122,914
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         18,046,341
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,654,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 33,248,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     32,022,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   33,248,120
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,045,355
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  822,844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,269,401
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,269,401
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,269,401
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Due  to the  nature  of  its  industry,  CNL  Income  Fund  X,  Ltd.  has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### LOYAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. Joseph A. DANOS, Jr.

No. 5805.

*Court*of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

May 15, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 5, 1973.

Writ Refused Aug. 21, 1973.

Robert F. Shearman, for Loyal Investment Corp., plaintiff-appellee.

James F. Quaid, Jr., Metairie, for Joseph A. Danos, Jr., defendant-appellant.

Before SAMUEL, GULOTTA, and SCHOTT, JJ.

SCHOTT, Judge.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before us on a motion filed by plaintiff-appellee to dismiss on the ground that defendant-appellant failed to file a proper appeal bond in the time provided by law.

*153Defendant-appellant took a suspensive appeal on September 22, 1972, and on February 28, 1973, plaintiff-appellee filed a rule to test the surety on the suspensive appeal bond. Following a trial of the rule on March 29, 1973, the trial judge declared the bond to be insufficient. Defendant-appellant filed a new bond on April 10, 1973.

The filing of the new appeal bond was not accomplished within the four-day period established in LSA-C.C.P. Art. 5124. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. Gracianette v. Brown, La. App., 131 So.2d 838.

Accordingly, the appeal taken in this matter is hereby dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
No. 10395.

#### Bowers et al. *v.*The Board of Education of Fulton Township et al.

Decided June 16, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Fulton county.

*Messrs. Ham, Ham & Ham*and *Messrs. Files & Paxton, for*plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Handy & Wolf,*for. defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Crew, Sumj mers and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### Geraldine NEAL, Appellant, v. Hayward NEAL, Appellee.

No. 72-246.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 13, 1973.

W. Paul Thompson, DeFuniak Springs, for appellant.

Michael N. Athanason, of Duggar & Athanason, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

PIERCE, Judge (Ret.).

In this case appellant Geraldine Neal purports to take an appeal to this Court “to review the Order of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, entered February 11th, 1972 . . .”. The “Order” of Feburary 11th referred to recited that the case came on before the Pinellas County Circuit Court “upon the oral motion of the defendant, Hayward Neal, for interpretation of the Order dated December 21, 1971, of . . . the Circuit Court of Walton County, . . . Florida.” It is further stated therein that upon due consideration “it is ordered that the defendant, Hayward Neal, is allowed to purge himself of his contempt by the payment of $60.00”, and “that upon the payment of said $60.00, the defendant, Hayward Neal, is to be released from the custody of the Pinellas County Jail”.

Apparently Neal had been adjudged in contempt of the Walton County Circuit Court. This supposition is further indicated by purported copy of order dated December 21, 1971, entered by Circuit Judge Beasley holding Neal in contempt of Court and sentencing him to serve 60 days in the Walton County jail but providing for his release from custody by payment of $60.00 for “arrears in child support payments”.

Neal’s brief says that the February 11, 1972 order of Pinellas Circuit Judge Beach aforesaid “was obtained in the first instance by Appellee only because the Pinel-las County Sheriff’s Department requested an interpretation of the Walton County Court Order by a Circuit Judge from Pi-nellas County.” Appellant in her brief, referring to said February 11th order, said it “apparently like Cinderella’s Godmother, just appeared one day in Pinellas County without benefit of Complaint, Petition, service, notice, jurisdiction or venue. The Order apparently was filed in the office of the Sheriff of Pinellas County, who honored the Order and released from custody the individual named therein, who was at *83the time incarcerated by Order of the Circuit Court of Walton County, Florida.”

All this is carrying our current relaxed mode of pleading and procedure just a bit too far. There were no litigants before the Court; there were no issues before the Court; in fact, there was no case even before the Court.

Neither the lower Court nor this Court ever had or acquired jurisdiction of any party or any subject matter.

The purported appeal is therefore

Dismissed.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., concurs.

McNULTY, J., concurs in conclusion only.
#### Charlton H. FUTCH, Jr., Petitioner, v. Jerrold A. BROSS, County Solicitor, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 40888.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 28, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 245 So.2d 700.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0316

_________________

THREE BLIND MICE,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

LARRY W. PRICE, JR.,

 Defendant and Appellee,

P&H TRUCKING, LLC and MY COMPANY, LLC,

 Intervenors and Appellants.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Rod Souza, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 14 2020

10/14/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0316
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-491]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4170-N-01]


Notice of Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996 Implementation Meetings

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 
Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of implementation meetings for the Native American 
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the first meetings sponsored by HUD to 
develop the regulations necessary to carry out the Native American 
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) (Pub. 
L. 104-330, approved October 26, 1996).

DATES: A meeting to discuss the allocation formula requirements will be 
held on January 7, 8, and 9, 1997. A meeting to discuss regulations 
required under NAHASDA will be held on January 14, 15, and 16 1997.
ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Office of Native American 
Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999 Broadway, 
Suite 3390, Denver, CO.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dominic Nessi, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Native American Programs, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, 1999 Broadway, Suite 3390, Denver, CO; telephone (303) 
675-1600 (voice) or 1-800-877-8339 (TTY for speech or hearing impaired 
individuals). These are not toll-free numbers.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 106 of NAHASDA requires the 
publication of a notice in the Federal Register within 90 days of its 
enactment to establish transition requirements, provide notice of 
negotiated rulemaking, and invite public comment. HUD will hold a 
series of meetings in the National Office of its Office of Native 
American Programs to discuss the regulatory implementation of NAHASDA. 
As indicated above, under the heading DATES, the first series of 
meetings on January 7, 8, and 9, will focus on the allocation formula 
requirements of NAHASDA section 302. A second series of meetings, on 
January 14, 15, and 16, will focus on the other regulatory requirements 
of NAHASDA. The input from these meetings will be utilized in the 
development of HUD's regulations implementing NAHASDA.

    Dated: January 6, 1997.
Kevin Emanuel Marchman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 97-491 Filed 1-6-97; 1:43 pm]
BILLING CODE 4210-33-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8421-8422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4638]


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

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD


Meeting

AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(Access Board) has scheduled its regular business meetings to take 
place in Washington, D.C. on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, March 10-
12, 1997 at the times and location noted below.

DATES: The schedule of events is as follows:

Monday, March 10, 1997

8:30 am-10:00 am--Ad Hoc Committee on Bylaws and Statutory Review
10:00 am-11:00 am--Long-Range Planning Group
11:00 am-12:30 pm--Briefing on Proposed Rule for Access to 
Telecommunications Equipment (Closed Meeting)

[[Page 8422]]

2:00 pm-5:00 pm--Committee of the Whole--State and Local Government 
Facilities Final Rule (Closed Meeting)

Tuesday, March 11, 1997

9:00 am-noon and 1:30 pm-5:00 pm ADAAG Revision--Discussion of Issues 
(Closed Meeting)

Wednesday, March 12, 1997

9:00 am-10:30 am--Briefing on Play Facilities Regulatory Negotiation 
(Closed Meeting)
10:30 am-noon--Planning and Budget Committee
1:30 pm-3:30 pm--Board Meeting.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at: Embassy Suites Hotel, 1250 
22nd Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the 
meetings, please contact Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director, (202) 
272-5434 ext. 14 (voice) and (202) 272-5449 (TTY).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the Board meeting, the Access Board will 
consider the following agenda items:

Open Meeting

    <bullet> Approval of the Minutes of the January 15, 1997 and 
November 13, 1996 Board Meetings.
    <bullet> Ad Hoc Committee on Bylaws and Statutory Review Report.
    <bullet> Planning and Budget Committee Report.

Closed Meeting

    <bullet> Proposed Rule for Access to Telecommunications Equipment.
    <bullet> Committee on the Whole Report--State and Local Government 
Facilities Final Rule.
    <bullet> ADAAG Revision.
    <bullet> Play Facilities Regulatory Negotiation.
    All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. Sign 
language interpreters and an assistive listening system are available 
at all meetings.
Lawrence W. Roffee,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 97-4638 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00522-CV

In re Morgan Michael McHugh

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Filed: August 9, 2018