alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ROY O. DANIELS

,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FI LED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1912

Opinion filed November 3, 2016.

Petition for Belated Appeal

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Roy O. Daniels, pro se

, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Marcus O. Graper, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , fo r Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

ROWE, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Charles G. EIDSON, Jr., et al., Appellees.

No. 19414.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1963.

Ernest Morgan, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Harry Baum, Michael I. Smith, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

J. Rodney Lee, of Ñaman, Howell, Smith & Chase, Waco, Tex., for appellees, Charles G. Eidson, Jr. and wife, Lee W. Eidson, and J. D. Metz and wife, Margaret E. Metz.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge, and CON-NALLY, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

It now appears for the first time in the petition and brief supporting the petition for rehearing that the judgment of the trial court included items other than those relating to the amount received by the taxpayers from the transactions discussed in the opinion. This appears to be conceded by the United States by the first footnote in its original brief, in which it states that the Government “is prosecuting its appeal only as to one of the issues decided below, and, therefore, the amount of taxes involved in this appeal is somewhat less than the amount of the judgment below.” The prior judgment of this Court, 310 F.2d 111, providing that the case was remanded for entry of judgment for the appellant, is therefore modified to the extent that it shall read: “The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

In all other respects this petition is

Denied.
Statement of the Air and Radiat ion Management Administration Department of the Environment for the Public Hearing Relating to Proposed New Regulation .09-1 Control of VOC Emissions from Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations Other Than Cold and Vapor Degreasing under COMAR 26.11.19 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes held on January 21, 2010 Baltimore, MD

My name is Husain Waheed. I am a Senior Regulatory and Compliance Engineer with the Regulation Development Division of the Ai r and Radiation Management Administration, Department of the Environment.

This public hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 51.102

and Sections 2-301 et.seq. of the Environment Article , Annotated Code of Maryland. It is also being held in conformance with the State Administrative Procedures Act under the State Government Article, beginning at Section 10-101.

Notice of this hearing appeared in the:

Maryland Register on December 18, 2009; MDE's website on December 17, 2009 to January 21, 2010; Baltimore Sun on December 18, 2009; Saint Mary's Enterprise on December 18, 2009; Cumberland Times-News on December 18, 2009; Frederick News-Post on December 18, 2009; Salisbury Daily Times on December 18, 2009; and the Washington Post on December 17, 2009.

Copies of these notices were submitted for the record.

Copies of the proposed action and supporting documents were submitted for review to the State Clearinghouse and are also submitted at this time into the hearing record. Copies were also made available for public inspection at th e Air and Radiation Management Administration offices in Baltimore, Cumberland, and Salisbury, and at all local health departments or local air quality control offices.

The purpose of today's hearing is to give the public an opportunity to comment on proposed new Regulation .09-1 under COMAR 26.11.19.

Summary

COMAR 26.11.19.09-1 sets the following VOC standard and requirements for mixing vessels (tanks), spray booths, and parts cleaners (excluding cold or vapor degreasing covered under COMAR 26.11.19.09), where VOC emissions from cleaning operations at a premises are 15 pounds or more per day (6.8 kg/day):

12 1. A person subject to the regulation may not use any VOC industrial solvent cleaning material that exceeds the vapor pressure 8 mm Hg at 20 deg. C (~ 0.152 psia) or 50 gram per liter VOC limit; and

2. Exemptions of industrial categories that have specific requirements for cleaning solvents are also included in the regulation.

Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)

This regulation will be submitted to the EPA for approval as part of the SIP.

Consideration of Comments

The Department will consider all comments before making a decision to adopt the proposed new regulation.
#### Thelma RABY et al. v. EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

No. 54523.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 5, 1974.

In re: Thelma Raby applying for Cer-tiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 289 So.2d S3S.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.

DIXON, J.,

is of the opinion that the writ should be granted because the Court of Appeal opinion is in error.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2013

p1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2013

147818

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147818

COA: 314187

Wayne CC: 10-003344-FC

WILLIAM EDWARD DAVIDSON, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 7, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 23, 2018.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis*                     (Mark A. Rauzi, Vice President), 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:                

                    1.                     *Bryant Bancshares, Inc., Bryant, South Dakota;*                     to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Richland State Bank, Bruce, South Dakota.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 26, 2018.

Ann Misback,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2018-14100 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,470
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,681
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,800
<INVENTORY>                                     40,059
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,471
<PP&E>                                         112,141
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,266
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 236,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,336
<BONDS>                                         85,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           124
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,395
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   236,395
<SALES>                                        279,688
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               334,515
<CGS>                                          297,248
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  312,590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,961
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (700)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,589
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,375
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,983
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,392
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,392
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51


</TABLE>
#### Marion Allen CUPIT and Jerry Lynn Cupit v. BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

No. 53121.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 16, 1973.

In re: Baton Rouge Police Department applying for writ of certiorari, or review.

Application denied. Applicant has a remedy by appeal to Court of Appeal. See Bowen v. Doyal, 259 La. 839, 253 So.2d 200.
U

. S

. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULINGMAKING PUBLIC MEETING ON

TELEVISION SETS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20 585

Thursday, March 22 , 2012

Room 8 E

- 089 Review Center

Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) is holding this public meeting to provide an overview

of the rulemaking process for establishing a test procedure for television sets

.

Agenda

9:00

- 9: 30 am Welcome ; Introductions; Agenda Review; and Opening

Statements

Doug Brookman

9 : 30

- 10: 0 0 am Rulemaking Overview

Victor Petrolati

10 : 00

- 1 1:00 am NOPR Summary, Scope, and Definitions

Christopher Yoder

11:00

- 11:15 a m Break

11:15

- 12:30 p m Testing Conditions and Testing

Anthony Rotolo and Christopher Yoder

12: 3 0

- 1 : 3 0 p m Lunch

1 : 3 0

- 4 : 45 p m Testing (continued , including ABC testing and 3D

testing) and Energy Efficiency Metrics

Anthony Rotolo, Christopher Yode r

, Louis

- Benoit Desroche s, and Mia

Forbes Pirie

4 : 45

- 5:0 0 pm Next Steps and Closing Remarks

Doug Brookman

At the end of each section, time will be set aside for web participants to ask

questions and/or make statements.

Questions e

- mailed during webinar will be included in the transcript.
263 La. 981

#### Presley Carl MUSE v. SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 52889.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 26, 1972.

In re: Sentry Insurance Company and Alexandria Steam Laundry, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 269 So.2d 609.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 988

To waive certain limitations on assistance for losses resulting from Hurricane

Andrew, Typhoon Omar, or Hurricane Iniki, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 18, 1993

Mrs. MINK introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Agriculture, Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, and

Natural Resources

A BILL

To waive certain limitations on assistance for losses resulting

from Hurricane Andrew, Typhoon Omar, or Hurricane

Iniki, 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. WAIVER OF LIMITATIONS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of losses incurred dur5 ing the 1992 and subsequent crop years as a result of

6 Hurricane Andrew, Typhoon Omar, or Hurricane Iniki,

7 funds appropriated under this or any other Act shall be

8 available to cover the losses without regard to—
2

•HR 988 IH

1 (1) in the case of emergency crop loss assist2 ance provided under the terms and conditions of

3 chapter 3 of subtitle B of the Food, Agriculture,

4 Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.

5 1421 note), the limitations specified in sections

6 2249, 2255(b), 2257, and 2266 of such Act and the

7 500 acre limitation specified in section 2258 of such

8 Act; and

9 (2) any limitation under a program adminis10 tered by the Secretary of Agriculture for which the

11 Secretary grants a waiver.

12 (b) RURAL DWELLINGS.—Low-income families (as

13 defined in section 3(b)(2) of the United States Housing

14 Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(2)) shall be eligible for

15 loans and grants for repairs or improvements of rural

16 dwellings provided under section 338 of the Housing Act

17 of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1474) for losses described in sub18 section (a).

19 (c) HAZARD MITIGATION.—Section 204 of the Omni20 bus Insular Areas Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 5204c) shall

21 apply to the State of Hawaii with respect to assistance

22 for hazard mitigation provided for losses described in sub23 section (a).

24 (d) BUDGETARY TREATMENT.—
3

•HR 988 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para2 graph (2), the entire amount required to carry out

3 this section is designated by Congress as an emer4 gency requirement pursuant to section

5 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emer6 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C.

7 901(b)(2)(D)(i)).

8 (2) BUDGET REQUEST.—The amount required

9 to carry out this section shall be available only to

10 the extent an official budget request, for a specific

11 dollar amount, that includes designation of the en12 tire amount of the request as an emergency require13 ment as defined in section 251 of such Act is trans14 mitted by the President to Congress.

Æ
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Arthur David Lowe v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00753

- CR , 01

- 18

- 00754

- CR

Trial court case number: 659154 , 659156

Trial court: 339 th District Court of Harris County

Appellant Arthur David Lowe filed a motion requesting this Court to forward the record of his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals following his filing of a petition for discretionary review on October 4, 2018. The r ecords were forwarded electronically to the Court of Criminal Appeals on October 5, 2018. The relief Lowe requested in his order has already been granted, and, accordingly, the Court dismisses the motion as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

__

/s / Evelyn V. Keyes

____________________ Acting individually

Date: __ November 8, 2018

____________
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7200

EARL JACOB CROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00565-RAJ) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 20, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl Jacob Cross, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Earl Jacob Cross seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cross has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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
May 2, 2013 . Errata: Page 39 of the FIFRA SAP Minutes No. 2013
- 01

”

A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Prioritizing the Universe of Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) Chemicals Using Computational Toxicology Tools ”
The FIFRA SAP Minutes No. 2013
- 01 , p.39, second paragraph beginning, “1) Some compounds are....” has been corrected prior to its availability in the public e

- docket, EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2012

- 0818. The following corrections were made t o clarify the meaning of each sentence in this paragraph: 1) “biological availability” was changed to “biologically available”, 2) the word “to” was added, 3) “These included” was changed to “ These properties include ”, and 4) “bulky” was changed to “bulkin ess”. 1) Some compounds are not biologically available to cause effects in whole organisms, e.g., not susceptible to pass transport or absorption due to physico

- chemical properties. Compounds that are not susceptible to passive transport across a concentration gradient or absorption due to adverse physico

- chemical properties will not be bioavailable

. These properties include molecular size (compounds that are too large are unable to m ig rate through membranes) or bulkiness , i.e. , the molecular dimensions in terms of breadth and width are too great). Compounds lacking in appropriate aqueous or lipid solubility will be unable to be absorbed.
Order entered February 6 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 00935 - CR No. 05 - 19 - 0093 6 - CR CHRISTIN LEE GORBY, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Ap peal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F19 - 00375 - T & F18 - 29750 - T



### O RDER
T he reporter’s record in these appeals, requested August 2, 2019, was due November 25, 2019. By order dated January 10, 2020, we orde red it filed by February 3, 2020. On February 4, 2020, court reporter Ve ar neas Faggett filed an exten s ion informing us for the first time that Yolanda Atkins also worked on the reporter ’ s record. We ORDER the comp lete re porter’s record filed on or before Mar ch 4 , 20 20 . We caution Ms. Faggett and Ms. Atkins that the failure to file the complete reporter’s record by that date will result in the Court ordering each one not to sit until the reporter’s record is filed , regardless of what portions are complete

.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies o f this order to the Honorable Lela Mays,

Presiding Judge, 2 8 3rd Judicial District Court; to Verneas Faggett , office court reporter, 2 8 3rd Judicial District Court; Yolanda Atkins, deputy court reporter ; and to counsel fo r all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 102 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 102

Providing for the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 22) 
    proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
              relating to voluntary prayer in the schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1993

 Mr. Stearns submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 22) 
    proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
              relating to voluntary prayer in the schools.

    Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
House shall resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union for the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. 
Res. 22) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States relating to voluntary prayer in public schools, and the first 
reading of the resolution shall be dispensed with. After general debate 
which shall be confined to the joint resolution and which shall not 
exceed two hours to be controlled by Representative Duncan of 
Tennessee, the joint resolution shall be considered for amendment under 
the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the 
joint resolution for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
joint resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been 
adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

                                 <all>
```