alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

### Harriet J. Schirmer 

### POBox773 Wrangell, AK 99929



### Mr. Kevin Schlemmer, Chief, EAS Division Office of Aviation Analysis U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590

Dear 

### Mr. Schlemmer**~-;** · r·**~ -~-~-**  

### i 

### I**~ .:1-~)**  

### November 28, 2014

I am writing to support the continuance ofEssential Air Service to Wrangell, Petersburg and other cities in Southeast Alaska.

Thank you for working on this important transportation link in our area without road connections.
#### Application of James Joseph DAUGHERTY, a child under the age of 18 years, for a writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner.

No. H-79-275.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 16, 1979.

ORDER DECLINING TO ASSUME JURISDICTION

On May 10, 1979, the above petitioner James Joseph Daugherty filed his petition in this Court seeking issuance of the writ of habeas corpus to set bail in Pottawatomie County District Court Case No. CRF-79-38, wherein petitioner was certified to stand trial as an adult” in juvenile proceedings numbered J-79-172; and,

In said petition it is asserted that petitioner has been denied bail pending the appeal from the said juvenile proceedings and remains incarcerated in the Pottawatomie County Jail; and petitioner further asserts that insofar as the District Court stayed further proceedings in CRF-79-38, on March 23, 1979, pending the results of petitioner’s appeal from the juvenile certification, that the District Court is without jurisdiction to entertain a petition for habe-as corpus for bail.

This matter was set down for hearing in this Court to be had on May 16, 1979, at 1:30 p. m.; and at that hearing petitioner was represented by Randy C. Parsons, Shawnee, and the State was represented by Rick Cornwell, Asst. Dist. Atty. Insofar as this is a matter of first impression concerning the question of bail, pending the juvenile proceedings appeal, this Court entertained argument concerning whether or not this Court should assume jurisdiction; and further, and for a determination of whether or not the District Court is authorized under these circumstances to hear the habeas matter pending the appeal of the juvenile proceedings to this Court.

NOW THEREFORE, after considering the pleadings filed herein and after hearing argument of counsel this Court finds that the District Court is authorized under the provisions of Oklahoma State Constitution Article VII, Section 10, and under the provisions of 10 O.S.1977 Supp., § 1123 C, which provides that the order of certification is a final order subject to appeal, but that such appeal shall not “. . . suspend the order of the district court . unless the Supreme Court or the Court of Criminal Appeals shall so order.” The District Court is authorized to entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus for bail notwithstanding the District Court order staying further proceedings in CRF-79-38.

AND FURTHER, this Court finds that insofar as this matter is one of first impression to which this Court has not heretofore spoken, that this Court should decline to assume jurisdiction of this matter without prejudice toward petitioner’s filing a petition in the District. Court seeking to have bail set where a proper record may be made for further consideration in any subsequent proceedings in this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS, AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT, this 16th day of May, 1979

TOM R. CORNISH, P. J.

TOM BRETT, J.

HEZ J. BUSSEY J.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

RUSSELL ROWE, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D21-1918

LT Case No. 05-2017-CF-010183-A

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed June 28, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Brevard County, 

John M. Griesbaum, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, 

and Glendon George Gordon, Jr., 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

LAMBERT, C.J., WALLIS and TRAVER, JJ., concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 834 

To require States and local educational agencies to report on the achievement 

of military-connected students in annual report cards under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 10, 2015 

Mrs. DAVIS of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To require States and local educational agencies to report 

on the achievement of military-connected students in annual report cards under the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Helping Military Chil5 dren Succeed in Schools Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 834 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORTING ON MILITARY-CONNECTED STUDENTS 

2 IN ANNUAL REPORT CARDS. 

3 Section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the Elementary and Sec4 ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(h)(1)(C)) 

5 is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (vii); 

7 (2) by striking the period at the end of clause 

8 (viii) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(ix) not later than the beginning of 

11 the 2015–2016 school year, information on 

12 the number of military-connected students 

13 (students who are a dependent of a mem14 ber of the Armed Forces, including reserve 

15 components thereof) in the State and how 

16 such military-dependent students achieved 

17 on the State academic assessments de18 scribed in subsection (b)(2) compared to 

19 all students in the State.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ST

ST

N_to
#### State v. Bailey

17360

4/10/96

Granted

— Hawai'i -, - P.2d -
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

10/09

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Oct 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
The Conestoga Settlement 

Trust, The 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 20, 2015

No. 04-13-00719-CV

AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant

v.

THE CONESTOGA SETTLEMENT TRUST, The RE Family Trust and Shea Ungar A/K/A 

Hershey Ungar Trustee of the RE Family Trust,

Appellees

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-17464

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

On April 20, 2015, appellant American National Insurance Company filed an unopposed 

motion pursuant to Rule 18.1(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, asking this court to 

issue our mandate immediately, or alternatively, to issue an order clarifying a previous stay order 

rendered by this court on November 18, 2013. This request arises from an accelerated appeal 

previously filed and submitted in this court. While the appeal was pending, at the behest of 

appellant, this court rendered an order on November 18, 2013, staying the trial court proceedings 

in this matter “pending final disposition of this accelerated interlocutory appeal.” Thereafter, the 

matter was submitted. On July 30, 2014, we issued our opinion and judgment in the accelerated 

appeal, affirming the trial court’s judgment. Appellant filed a petition for review in the supreme 

court, which was denied on March 13, 2015. No motion for rehearing has been filed in the 

supreme court and appellant asserts none will be filed. Accordingly, we hold this interlocutory 

appeal has been finally disposed of pursuant to our order of November 18, 2013. However, to 

avoid further confusion by the parties, we will order the clerk of this court to immediately issue 

our mandate in this appeal. The issuance of the mandate finally disposes of this accelerated 

appeal.
Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion in part and ORDER the clerk of this court 

to immediately issue the court’s mandate in appeal number 04-13-00719-CV, styled American 

National Insurance Company v. The Conestoga Settlement Trust, The RE Family Trust and Shea 

Ungar a/k/a Hershey Ungar Trustee of The RE Family Trust. The portion of appellant’s motion 

asking that we clarify our prior order is DENIED AS MOOT. We further ORDER the clerk of 

this court to immediately serve a copy of this order on all counsel and the trial court.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7574

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CRAIG NEILDONDO SMALLS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:08-cr-00337-D-1; 5:14-cv-00249-D)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig Neildondo Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. Denise Walker, Seth 

Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Craig Neildondo Smalls seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Smalls has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
REQUEST TO ADD, DELETE, OR CHANGE A VARIETY TO THE U.S. OECD LIST

Please fill out this form & send it to your local seed certification agency. That agency will review and validate then 

will send to the OECD designated authority.

To view list of U.S.Cultivars eligible for OECD Certification, please go to: 

http://apps.ams.usda.gov/oecdvarietalsearch/ 

(Please mark) ADD DELETE CHANGE 

State Agency Name: 

Agency Address: 

Maintainer of the Variety:

Variety Name: _________________________________________________

(Original Experimental Name (if any):

Alternative/Synonym Name (if any) for the OECD list:

Common Name (i.e. corn) 

Genus and Species: 

Pedigree: ________________________________________________Field Number 

State Accepted for Certification in Year 

Originator/Plant Breeder: 

Additional Classification References for the OECD list such as,

diploid/tetraploid, forage/turf, rhizomes, etc.

Date: 

Submitted by:

Address: 

Phone Number:

E-mail Address:

Signed:

========================================================================== 

2. (For use by Certification Agency)

Approved by:

Date sent to the U.S., OECD Designated Authority:

Mail: Attn: Dr. Steve Malone, USDA, AMS, S&T, Seed Regulatory & Testing Division; 801 Summit

Crossing Place, Suite C; Gastonia, NC 28054

Phone: 704-810-8888 / e-mail: stephen.malone@usda.gov

3. (U.S. Designated Authority use only)

Added to OECD List of Cultivars: Date
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-883V 

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 * 

DOUGLAS D. NICHOLS, * 

 * Filed: March 24, 2015 

 Petitioner, * 

 * Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s 

 v. * Fees & Costs

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * 

HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner

Alexis Babcock, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent 

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION1

On November 8, 2013, Douglas D. Nichols filed a petition seeking compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program@). On March 23, 

2015, the parties filed a stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I 

subsequently issued a decision finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting 

Petitioner the award outlined by the stipulation. 

On March 24, 2015, counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time in 

regards to attorney’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should 

receive a lump sum of $12,977.56, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s 

1

 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will post this decision on the 

United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 

107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the posted decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of 

confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request 

redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in 

substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will 

be available to the public. (Id.) 

 
counsel. This amount represents a sum to which respondent does not object. In addition, and in 

compliance with General Order #9, Petitioner has represented that he did not incur any 

reimbursable costs in proceeding on this petition. 

I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly, 

an award should be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s 

counsel, Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar, Esq. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to 

RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with 

the terms of the parties’ stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Brian H. Corcoran

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their

right to seek review.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 81417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25814]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Designated Reserve Ratio for 2024

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of Designated Reserve Ratio for 2024.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), the 
Board of Directors (Board) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
(FDIC) designates that the Designated Reserve Ratio (DRR) for the 
Deposit Insurance Fund shall remain at 2 percent for 2024. The Board is 
publishing this notice as required by the FDI Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Mihalik, Associate Director, 
Financial Risk Management, Division of Insurance and Research, 202-898-
3793, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2f4e4246474e4346446f494b464c01484059"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="13727e7a7b727f7a785375777a703d747c65">[email protected]</span></a>; Daniel Hoople, Chief, Fund Analysis and 
Pricing Section, Division of Insurance and Research, 202-898-3835, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#44202c2b2b3428210422202d276a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ed898582829d8188ad8b89848ec38a829b">[email protected]</span></a>; or Kathryn Marks, Counsel, Legal Division, 202-898-
3896, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9bf0f6fae9f0e8dbfdfff2f8b5fcf4ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d06000c1f061e2d0b09040e430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the FDI Act, the Board 
designates that the DRR for the Deposit Insurance Fund shall remain at 
2 percent for 2024. The Board is publishing this notice as required by 
section 7(b)(3)(A)(i) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(b)(3)(A)(i)). 
There is no need to amend 12 CFR 327.4(g), the section of the FDIC's 
regulations which sets forth the DRR, because the DRR for 2024 is the 
same as the current DRR.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    By order of the Board of Directors.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on November 16, 2023.
James P. Sheesley,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25814 Filed 11-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50359 Summary Calendar

GREGORY THOMAS DICKERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOHN CORNYN, Attorney General, State of Texas; WILLIAM C. ZAPALAC, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-99-CV-387-JN

-------------------- October 26, 2000 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gregory Thomas Dickerson, Texas prisoner # 592865, challenges the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Texas officials, asserting that the application of the procedural bar to his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition was error. This is the same claim Dickerson raised in the prior habeas proceedings. The district court’s dismissal was not error because Dickerson’s complaint was an attempt to relitigate the issue ofNo. 00-50359 -2- the procedural bar and was thus a challenge to the underlying constitutionality of his confinement; as such, it was barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). The instant appeal is frivolous and is therefore DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of the lawsuit counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and this court’s dismissal is another strike. See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Dickerson is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
# C_2016202EN.01010301.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/103 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/103

---

Article 128

(ex Article 106 TEC)

(ex Article 106 TEC)

1.   The European Central Bank shall have the exclusive right to authorise the issue of euro banknotes within the Union. The European Central Bank and the national central banks may issue such notes. The banknotes issued by the European Central Bank and the national central banks shall be the only such notes to have the status of legal tender within the Union.

2.   Member States may issue euro coins subject to approval by the European Central Bank of the volume of the issue. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and the European Central Bank, may adopt measures to harmonise the denominations and technical specifications of all coins intended for circulation to the extent necessary to permit their smooth circulation within the Union.

---
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply536Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Lizzie B. (not... (not verified)PermalinkMay 31, 2020 - 8:52amI'm very glad the AOC is now in charge of preserving the Grant Memorial as it looked like it had been forgotten by the Parks Service.  _x000D_ _x000D_ The AOC has done a wonderful job of preserving this monument to a great patriot and general, U. S. Grant.  I think that General Grant has been put on the back burner in US History, unjustly.  I'm hoping more people discover him and his contribution to our country.   I can't wait to see his memorial on my upcoming trip to Washington.  Thank you for all your efforts and the marvelous job your group has done on to make this memorial beautiful again.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe