alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26102-26103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10511]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Termination of Environmental Impact Statement for the 
Friedman Memorial Replacement Airport, Hailey, ID

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its 
decision to terminate the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 
Friedman Memorial Replacement Airport.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Stelling, by mail at Federal 
Aviation Administration, Airports Division, Attn: Dave Stelling, Helena 
Airports District Office, FAA Building Suite 2, 2725 Skyway Drive, 
Helena, MT 59602-1213, email at dave.stelling@faa.gov, or by telephone 
(406) 449-5271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 1, 2007, the FAA issued a Notice 
of Intent in the Federal Register [72 FR 61945] to prepare an EIS for a 
replacement airport for Friedman Memorial Airport, Hailey, ID. The FAA 
proceeded with the EIS process in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. On August 23, 2011, FAA 
suspended the EIS process due to issues related to wildlife impacts and 
increased development costs associated with the identified potential 
sites for the proposed replacement airport. For these same reasons, FAA 
is announcing its decision today to terminate the EIS. The FAA will 
continue working with the Friedman Memorial Airport Authority to 
identify and evaluate alternative means of addressing the issues 
associated with the existing Friedman Memorial Airport.

[[Page 26103]]

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 26, 2013.
Carolyn T. Read,
Acting Airports Division Manager--Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-600.
[FR Doc. 2013-10511 Filed 5-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Exhibit 32.1



                     Certification Pursuant to Section 906
                       of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Strategic
Acquisitions, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, John P. O'Shea, President of the
Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        15(d) 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 or operations of the
        Company.



/s/ JOHN P. O'SHEA                                               March 31, 2011
---------------------------------
John P. O'Shea
Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Carl Patrick SMITH.

No. 87-K-2634.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Smith, Carl Patrick; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KA87 0473; Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, Nos. 155580, 155681.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 122 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 122

  Authorizing the reporting of committee funding resolutions for the 
           period October 1, 1999 through February 28, 2001.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 14, 1999

   Mr. McConnell (for himself and Mr. Dodd) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the reporting of committee funding resolutions for the 
           period October 1, 1999 through February 28, 2001.

    Resolved, That notwithstanding paragraph 9 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate--
            (1) not later than July 15, 1999, each committee shall 
        report 1 resolution authorizing the committee to make 
        expenditures out of the contingent fund of the Senate to defray 
        its expenses, including the compensation of members of its 
        staff, for the period October 1, 1999 through February 28, 
        2001; and
            (2) the Committee on Rules and Administration may report 1 
        authorization resolution containing more than 1 committee 
        authorization resolution for the period October 1, 1999 through 
        February 28, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Arthur E. JACKSON, Jr.

No. 86-KH-2553.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Jackson, Arthur E. Jr.; applying for writ of mandamus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “D”.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., would grant the writ.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued October 3, 2007

Decided November 6, 2007

Before

 Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

 Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 06-4263

CHASE MARCONI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division

No. 05 C 3136

Michael T. Mason,

Magistrate Judge.

O R D E R

Chase Marconi applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), alleging

that he suffers from a mental impairment that became disabling before June 30,

2002, the date his disability insurance lapsed. The issue on appeal is whether the

Social Security Administration applied the law correctly and relied on substantial

evidence in concluding that Marconi was not disabled as of the date he was last

insured. Because the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) correctly applied the law in

finding that Marconi did not have a severe impairment and substantial evidence

supports this finding, we affirm.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance 

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      I, Thomas P. Russo, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer of MetaMorphix, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the
best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended June 30, 2005 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
    or 15(d) 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
    Registrant.

                                     By:             /s/ Thomas P. Russo

                                                     Thomas P. Russo
                                         EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, TREASURER AND
                                               CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                                                    METAMORPHIX, INC.

Date:  October 3, 2006
EXHIBIT #21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                                Chesapeake Bank

                          Chesapeake Mortgage Company

                         Chesapeake Investment Services

                              CNB Properties, Inc.




                                       29

<PAGE>




                                  EXHIBIT #21

                    CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         We hereby consent to the use of our report dated January 8, 1998 in
this Annual Report on Form 10KSB relating to the Consolidated Financial
Statements of Chesapeake Financial Shares, Inc. and subsidiaries, appearing
under Item 7., Financial Statements, including, without limitation, the
incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses constituting part of the
Registration Statements on Form S-18 (#33- 27825) of Chesapeake Financial
Shares, Inc.



                                                   /s/
                                                   Yount, Hyde & Barbour, P.C.

March 13, 1998
Winchester, Virginia


                                                    30
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John PORTERFIELD.

KA870852.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Nov. 22, 1988.

Before SHORTESS, LANIER and CRAIN, JJ.

LANIER, Judge.

On original hearing, this court reversed defendant’s conviction and sentence (pursuant to a guilty plea) for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, a violation of La.R.S. 40:967(A)(1). We noted as patent error that the defendant pled guilty to an offense which was not responsive to the charge contained in the bill of information in the record before us, and the record did not contain a *written*amendment to that bill of information.

The state applied for a rehearing, attaching to its application a copy of the bill of information in an amended form. On this bill of information was a. handwritten amendment which charged defendant with the offense to which he actually had pled guilty, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Because this amended bill of information was not in the record before us, we ordered a formal supplementation of the record by the district court, which revealed the correctness of the state’s allegation that the bill of information had been properly amended in writing to charge the offense of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.1 Defendant’s brief on rehearing admits that the bill of information was amended in writing before defendant entered his guilty plea.

Accordingly, we vacate our decree on original hearing and affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.

1

. The original, unamended bill of information apparently was lost. The district court clerk's office supplemented the appellate record with a copy of microfilm copy, upon which the state had made the original handwritten amendment. Hence, the microfilm copy became the original bill of information.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Aaron Caleb Swenson, Appellant

No. 06-21-00125-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 102nd District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

20F0504-102). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Stevens, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice van Cleef participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Aaron Caleb Swenson, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 7, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### HZJ, INC., Appellant, v. James P. WYSOCKI, Appellee.

No. 86-2000.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 1, 1987.

Rice & Reiser, James C. Blecke and Susan S. Lemer, Miami, for appellant.

Tescher & Milstein and Richard Milstein, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant HZJ, Inc. from a trial court order dismissing its counterclaim and striking its answer and affirmative defenses. We treat the appeal as one taken from (1) an appealable final *1089order as to the counterclaim dismissal, and (2) an appealable interlocutory order under Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) as to the striking of the answer and affirmative defenses. We affirm.

The stated basis for the trial court’s order was as follows:

> “Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and statements as to the Court files and records, the Court concludes that:

> a. Defendant/Counterclaimant, HZJ, INC., has willfully disregarded the sanctity of Florida Statutes and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and has acted in deliberate and contumacious disregard of the Court’s authority by thwarting the discovery process and this Court’s Orders requiring the production of documentation and witnesses in this cause.

> b. The repeated Orders of this Court which withheld the imposition of sanctions on Defendant HZJ, INC., which permitted Plaintiff to move for the imposition of sanctions, which would include the striking of pleadings, based upon the failure and refusal and callous disregard of Defendant in complying with said Orders, justifies the imposition of sanctions at this time as requested by Plaintiff.

> c. Defendant has embarked upon and travelled down a path of intentional delay and abuse of the judicial system in clear violation of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and in particular this Court’s Orders as set forth in the findings of fact. Striking the pleadings and Dismissing the Counterclaim of Defendant/Counterclaimant, pursuant to Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.380(b)(2)(C) is an appropriate response by this Court to the intentional delay and abuse of the system for the willful refusal to comply with the Orders pertaining to discovery in this cause.”

R. 248-49.

The defendant HZJ, Inc. urges that the trial court abused its discretion in entering this order because it was punished too severely for matters beyond its control. We cannot agree. The trial court’s order sets out a detailed course of conduct by the defendant which fully supports the trial court’s conclusions. Plainly, the defendant

engaged in bad faith “games playing” with the court and opposing counsel in delaying and thwarting the orderly process of discovery in this cause. The sanctions complained of were imposed after fair warning to the defendant and were fully justified in this record. *Mercer v. Raine,*443 So.2d 944 (Fla.1983); *A.H. Robins Co. v. Dever-ecmx,*415 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), *pet. for review denied, 426*So.2d 25 (Fla.1983); *Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*410 So.2d 978 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); *Watson v. Peskoe,*407 So.2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
     
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             752
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    15614
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 16366
<PP&E>                                          255839
<DEPRECIATION>                                  169555
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2787570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         11318036
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         11310
<OTHER-SE>                                    (8807400)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2787570
<SALES>                                        4864717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4864717
<CGS>                                          2700276
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5945512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1044400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (2103157)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (2103157)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
           

</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1313-14

LIONEL GONZALES, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ORDER PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES OF 

APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 9.10

CAUSE NUMBER 2004CR1992

IN THE 379 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM BEXAR COUNTY

Per curiam.

ORDER

This cause is before this Court on petition for discretionary review from the 4

th

Court of Appeals case number 04-11-00405-CR.

The Clerk of this Court has discovered sensitive data in the record, namely: the

name of the complainant who was a minor TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art 57.02(h) and

personal identification number. . TEX. R. APP. P. Rule 9.10(a). Pursuant to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.10, the Clerk sought a ruling from the Court and thereafter notified
Rule 9.10 Order - 2

the parties. The Court now orders the Clerk of this Court to redact or seal the discovered

sensitive data from the records identified and listed below. The Court further orders the

trial court clerk, the clerk of the court of appeals, or any entity or individual possessing

the following documents to redact or seal the documents pursuant to this order:

1. Clerk’s Record

2. Reporter’s Record

Filed: April 6, 2015

Do not publish
Variable Question(s) 

Age 1

Gender 2

Race 5a, 5b

Criminal history 23, 24

Physical/mental disability 25

Education level/degrees 7, 8, 9

Prior employment history and income 10, 11, 12

Financial support 22

Caregiver status 3a, 3b

Military status 4

Area of residence 6

Similar services 29
Outcome Questions 

Members increase desire/expectations for 

postsecondary education 18©

Members gain knowledge about 

postsecondary education 15(j,k,l,m,n,o)

Members gain knowledge of job search skills 15(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i)

Members increase positive attitudes about 

obtaining and maintaining employment 28(a,b,d)

Members gain knowledge of community 

resources 15(p,q,r) 

Members increase positive attitudes / sense 

of community 16, 17

Members increase self-efficacy 13, 14

Members complete job search components 19(a,b,c,d,e) , 20

Members gain job experience 10, 11, 12

Members complete coursework and/or take 

GED test 8, 9, 19(f,g) 

Members or alumni increase in GED 

certificates / H.S. diplomas 7

Members or alumni increase access to 

community products (e.g. housing 

applications, TANF) 21, 22

Members or alumni obtain a job / internship 

/ apprenticeship 10

Members increase civic engagement 

(registered to vote, engaged in the 

community) 26,27, 28

Members or alumni increase in completed 

college/trade school applications 19(h,i) 

Members or alumni decrease recidivism / 

interaction with the criminal justice system 23, 24

Members or alumni increase in college 

enrollment 7, 8, 9, 19(j) 

Members or alumni maintain employment 10
Timeline 

During the program 

During the program 

During the program 

During the program 

During the program 

During the program 

During the program 

Up to 3 months after the 

program 

Up to 12 months after the 

program 

Up to 12 months after the 

program 

During the program through 6 

or more months afterward 

During the program through 6 

or more months afterward 

By 3 to 6 months after the 

program 

By 3 to 6 months after the 

program 

During the program or up to 12 

or more months after the 

program 

During the program or up to 12 

or more months after the 

program 

3 to 12 or more months after 

the program 

6 to 12 or more months after 

the program
#### Judy M. FOSTER, et vir v. LAFAYETTE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 87-C-0822.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Ferrier, Joseph W.; Ferrier, Craig; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 18411-CA; Parish of Caddo, First Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, No. 301609.

Prior report: La.App., 504 So.2d 82.

Denied.
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 Deposit Insurance Corporation

Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:27 a.m. on Tuesday, March 20, 2012, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.

                    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director Thomas J. Curry (Appointive), seconded by Director John G. Walsh (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), concurred in by Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) and Acting Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters                           ( print page 16838)                        in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10)).                

The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550—17th Street NW., Washington, D.C.

Dated: March 20, 2012.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-7035 Filed 3-20-12; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE P