alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 29544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13537]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Mokupapapa 
Discovery Center Exhibit Evaluation.
    OMB Control Number: 0648-0582.
    Form Number(s): None.
    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved 
information collection).
    Number of Respondents: 250.
    Average Hours per Response: 7 minutes.
    Burden Hours: 29.
    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently 
approved information collection. Mokupapapa Discovery Center (Center) 
is an outreach arm of Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument that 
reaches 65,000 people each year in Hilo, Hawai`i. The Center was opened 
fifteen years ago to help raise support for the creation of a National 
Marine Sanctuary in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Since that time, 
the area has been proclaimed a Marine National Monument and the main 
messages we are trying to share with the public have changed to better 
reflect the new monument status, UNESCO World Heritage status and the 
joint management by the three co-trustees of the Monument. We therefore 
are seeking to find out if people visiting our Center are receiving our 
new messages by conducting an optional exit survey.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: One time.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. 
Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections 
currently under review by OMB.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#347b7d66756b674156595d47475d5b5a745b59561a515b441a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c38c8a91829c90b6a1aeaab0b0aaacad83acaea1eda6acb3eda4acb5">[email protected]</span></a> or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: June 20, 2018.
Sarah Brabson,
NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-13537 Filed 6-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Carlos CAMACHO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 7071.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 18, 1967.

Carlos Camacho, in Pro. Per., and William J. Switalski, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

*24SHANNON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying without a hearing a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. I, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.

Appellant Carlos Camacho was indicted for first-degree murder. After originally pleading not guilty, he subsequently substituted a plea of guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to a life term. At the time of his guilty plea he was represented by counsel. As the ground for his postconviction motion he alleged 'that the police illegally extracted a confession from him and that as a result he had no practical alternative to pleading guilty to second-degree murder.

The record shows that appellant himself indicated that he was pleading guilty to second-degree murder voluntarily, after discussion with his counsel and his relatives, and with full understanding that he might receive a life sentence. The record further indicates that there was evidence available, apart from appellant’s confession, sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt. These factors permit the reasonable inference that such evidence, and not the confession, prompted appellant to plead guilty to second-degree murder rather than face a possible death sentence. Appellant’s contention that his guilty plea was induced solely by his confession is insubstantial and insufficient to require a hearing. Childress v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 655; Thompson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 564, 568; Williams v. State, Fla.App., 174 So.2d 97, 100, appeal dismissed mem., Fla., 179 So.2d 211, cert. denied mem., 1965, 382 U.S. 963, 86 S.Ct. 448, 15 L.Ed.2d 366; Taylor v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 861, 862.

Accordingly, the order denying appellant’s postconviction motion is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
House Calendar No. 91

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 261

[Report No. 103–261]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference re30, 1994, and for other purposes. Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September fice of the President, and certain Independent United States Postal Service, the Executive Of- appropriations for the Treasury Department, the port to accompany the bill (H.R. 2403) making

SEPTEMBER 28, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 91

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 261

[Report No. 103–261]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 2403) making appropriations for the Treasury Department,

the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President,

and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September

30, 1994, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1993

Mr. BEILENSON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (H.R. 2403) making appropriations

for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal

Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending

September 30, 1994, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 2403) making appropriations for
2

HRES 261 RH

1 the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Serv2 ice, the Executive Office of the President, and certain

3 Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending Septem4 ber 30, 1994, and for other purposes. All points of order

5 against the conference report and against its consideration

6 are waived.
#### OLEKSZA *v.*NOLAN.

1. Negligence — Excavation for Sewer — Evidence.

In action for damages to plaintiffs house, alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence in constructing sewer, testimony, *held,*sufficient to sustain verdict in favor of plaintiff.

2. Same — Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur Not Applied.

It is not application of doetrine of *res ipsa loquitur*to- find negligence from condition which is shown to have existed and which could have caused the damage, and all other possible explanations are excluded.

Appeal from Wayne; Marschner (Adolph F.), J.

Submitted January 22, 1932.

(Docket No. 27, Calendar No. 36,076.)

Decided April 4, 1932.

*241Case by Steve Oleksza and another against Thomas D. Nolan for damages to plaintiffs’ house alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence in the construction of a sewer. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*James I. Ellmann (Henry P. Rosin,*of counsel), for plaintiffs.

*John Hal Engel (Edmund E. Shepherd,*of counsel), for defendant.

Fead, J.

Defendant, under contract with the city of Detroit, constructed a sewer over 25 feet deep between the sidewalk and curb in front of plaintiffs’ premises. Plaintiffs’ house was about two years old and in good condition. A week or two after the sewer was constructed, the house moved slightly forward and was damaged. The sidewalk and pavement adjoining the sewer also sank. Plaintiffs had judgment on trial before the court.

There was ample testimony to justify the conclusion that the construction of the sewer caused the damage to plaintiffs. By force of circumstances, plaintiffs were not able to trace the moving of the house unequivocally and directly to a specific act of defendant. However, the testimony was that two possible conditions could have caused the ground to shift — that the contractor .neglected to fill in with earth around the tunnel during construction, and absorption of moisture through the brick of the sewer, the ground being of a soft, damp character. The contractor himself did not think the latter condition responsible for the damage. There was evidence of voids around the tunnel which could have caused it. It is not an application of the doctrine of *res ipsa loquitur*to find negligence from a condition *242which is shown to have existed and which conld have caused the *damage, and*all other possible explanations are excluded.

The circuit judge, on view of the premises, was of the opinion that the weight of the building did not cause the ground to move, but that the land shifted because of the contractor’s failure to take reasonable precautions. *Bissell*v. *Ford,*176 Mich. 64.

In our opinion, the verdict cannot be said to be against the preponderance of the evidence, and judgment is affirmed, with coáts.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Btjtzel, JJ., concurred.
#### Mollie Netcher BOSTWICK, Appellant, v. Westley W. SILVIAN et al., Appellees.

No. 70-932.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 14, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Joseph P. Metzger, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-50767

Summary Calendar

 

MARY D. MONROE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-94-CA-836 JN

- - - - - - - - - -

August 28, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mary Monroe appeals the district court's affirmance of the

Commissioner's decision denying her social security disability

benefits. Monroe argues that the findings of the administrative

law judge (ALJ) are not supported by relevant legal standards and

substantial evidence. We have carefully reviewed the record and

the arguments. We detect no error. Accordingly, we affirm for
No.

- 2 -

essentially the same reasons given by the district court. See

Monroe v. Chater, No. A-94-CA-836 JN (W.D. Tex. Sep. 14, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
#### Garford Trucking Company, Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*Joseph F. Popp, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

November 5, 1952.

*555
      *J ohn P. Smith*for defendant.

*Herman Hahen*for plaintiff.

Gavagan, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations of the State of Connecticut, where the cause of action arose. On November 27,1949, a collision occurred on a public highway in Greenwich, Connecticut, between motor vehicles owned by the respective parties. The plaintiff is a New Jersey corporation. The residence of the defendant is not pleaded or disclosed, although he was eventually served in this State on August 1, 1951.

Since the plaintiff is not a resident of New York, it is fundamental that the action is barred here if it is barred in the State where the cause arose. (Civ. Prac. Act, §13; *National Sur. Co.*v. *Ruffin,*242 N. Y. 413.) From all the papers before me, and in the absence of any suggestion therein that the defendant ever was a resident of Connecticut, it appears that he was a nonresident motorist of that State at the time of the accident.

In *Tublitz*v. *Hirschfeld*(118 F. 2d 29) the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, succinctly stated the law of Connecticut, applicable here, as follows: “In Connecticut a cause of action based on negligence must be brought within one year from the date of the injury or neglect complained of. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6015 [now § 8324]. But in computing the time limited, the period during which the defendant is absent from the state is to be excluded. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6022 [now § 8330]. Although the defendants have been continuously absent from Connecticut since the date of the accident, they say that the plaintiff’s cause of action is not saved by section 6022 because service could have been made upon them at any time within the year by serving the Connecticut commissioner of motor vehicles pursuant to section 5473 [now § 7779] of the General Statutes. This position is sustained by *Coombs*v. *Darling,*116 Conn. 643, * 8 # which is conclusive upon federal courts as to the meaning of the Connecticut statutes.”

Though the Connecticut statutes have since been renumbered, their substance and effect have remained constant and they are controlling over such an action as found here. The motion to dismiss the complaint is accordingly granted,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RASHEEM JAMES DRUMMOND,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 761 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of June, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# Official Journal C 251/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.251.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 251 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5521 August 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.251.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 251

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5521 August 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 251/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6619 — TSR Recycling/HKS Scrap Metals) (1) | 1 |
| 2012/C 251/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6537 — Faurecia/Plastal) (1) | 1 |
| 2012/C 251/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6618 — Raiffeisen Bank International/Raiffeisen Bank Polska) (1) | 2 |
| 2012/C 251/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6622 — Banco Santander/Kredyt Bank/Zagiel) (1) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 251/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6619 — TSR Recycling/HKS Scrap Metals) (1)

1

2012/C 251/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6537 — Faurecia/Plastal) (1)

1

2012/C 251/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6618 — Raiffeisen Bank International/Raiffeisen Bank Polska) (1)

2

2012/C 251/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6622 — Banco Santander/Kredyt Bank/Zagiel) (1)

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 251/05 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 251/05

Euro exchange rates

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 251/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6691 — AXA IMPEE/FIVES) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 4 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2012/C 251/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6691 — AXA IMPEE/FIVES) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29131-29132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11823]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9009-2]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 05/06/2013 
Through 05/10/2013.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to EPA's agency-wide furlough day on 
Friday, May 24th and the Federal holiday on Monday, May 27th, all EISs 
must be filed with EPA by Thursday, May 23rd by 5:00 pm Eastern Time 
for publication under a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register 
for Friday, May 31st.
EIS No. 20130125, Draft Supplement, FTA, CA, Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

[[Page 29132]]

Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/17/2013, Contact: Mary Nguyen 213-202-
3960.
EIS No. 20130126, Final EIS, BLM, AZ, Mohave County Wind Farm Project, 
Review Period Ends: 06/17/2013, Contact: Jackie Neckels 602-417-9262.
EIS No. 20130127, Draft EIS, NMFS, AK, Steller Sea Lion Protection 
Measures for Groundfish Fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands Management Area, Comment Period Ends: 07/16/2013, Contact: 
Melanie Brown 907-586-7228.
EIS No. 20130128, Final EIS, USFS, MT, Pilgrim Timber Sale Project, 
Kootenai National Forest, Review Period Ends: 06/17/2013, Contact: Doug 
Grupenhoff 406-827-0741.
EIS No. 20130129, Draft EIS, USA, TX, Implementation of Energy, Water, 
and Solid Waste Sustainability Initiatives at Fort Bliss, Texas and New 
Mexico, Comment Period Ends: 07/01/2013, Contact: Pamela M. Klinger 
210-466-1595.
EIS No. 20130130, Draft EIS, USFS, WY, Clinker Mining Addition Project, 
Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National 
Grassland, Comment Period Ends: 07/01/2013, Contact: Amy Ormseth 307-
358-4690

    Dated: May 14, 2013.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-11823 Filed 5-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00079-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.S., a Child

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-00190

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFRIMED.

SIGNED June 11, 2014.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.133


                                 LEASE AMENDMENT

That certain OFFICE BUILDING LEASE dated June 23, 1988 and Amended on December
22, 1988, September 27, 1989, September 24, 1990, July 7, 1992, May 12, 1993,
June 5, 1995, April 30, 1996, May 19, 1997, September 5, 1997, May 14, 1998 and
May 14, 1998 and May 31, 2000 by and between LAGUNA NIGUEL OFFICE CENTER, a
California Limited Partnership, as Landlord, and OPTIMUMCARE CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation, as Tenant, is hereby amended as follows:

     (1)  Lease shall be extended for a period of one (1) year. The new lease
          expiration date shall be June 30, 2002.

     (2)  Rental rate shall increase to $2175.00 per month effective July 1,
          2001.

     (3)  All other terms and conditions of the original lease shall remain the
          same.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of April
23, 2001.


LAGUNA NIGUEL OFFICE CENTER                     OPTIMUMCARE CORPORATION
a California Limited Partnership                a Delaware Corporation


By: /s/ CARL J. GREENWOOD                       By: /s/ EDWARD JOHNSON
    --------------------------------------          ----------------------------
        Carl J. Greenwood, General Partner              Edward Johnson, Chairman
                                                        & CEO

        (Landlord)                                      (Tenant)
#### T. R. LANGSTON, d/b/a Langston's Furniture and Appliances, Inc. v. Emile ESPADRON, Jr.

No. 54419.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1974.

In re: T. R. Langston, d/b/a Langston’s Furniture & Appliances, Inc. applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Pla-quemines. 286 So.2d 727.

Writ denied: The result is correct.

BARHAM, J.

concurs in denial. The trial court award of attorney’s fees may be sustained under an analogous approach to the law on such fees. Court of Appeal was not required to change basis of award.

DIXON, J.

is of the opinion that the writ should be granted to put at rest the right to obtain attorney’s fees for the dissolution of a wrongful seizure under a fi fa.