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

(Last, First, Middle) Title Company/ Organization Street Address Phone 

Webinar Attendees: Notice of intent to establish a subcommittee and negotiate a proposed rule on Energy Efficiency Stan

Transformers

City Fax State/ Prov Zip

Meeting Date: 9/28/2011

Transformer Technology Leader

Allen, Ph.D., Jerry Metglas, Inc. 440 Allied Drive Conway SC 29526 843-349-6810 843-349-6Bolduc , Christopher N/A LBNL 1 Cyclotron Road Berkeley CA 94720 647-832-4021 N/A 

President and Chief Executive Officer P.E.

Hopkinson, Philip J. HVolt Inc. 3704 High Ridge Road Charlotte NC 28270 704-846-3290 704-845-2

Vice President of Technology

ABB Inc. 940 Main Campus 

Drive Suite 500

Patterson, Wesley Releigh NC 27606 919-829-4364 919-856-2

Distinguished Scientist Emeritus

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

160 Southampton Avenue

Rosenfeld, Arthur H. Berkley CA 94707 916-495-2227 510-486-5

Systems Engineer Memphis Light Gas and 

Water

Rossetti, John 220 South Main Memphis TN 38103 N/A N/A 

President EMS International Consulting, 

Inc

Sampat, Manesh P. 1180 Brookview Drive Athens GA 30606 706-549-8155 706-549-8

Principal Engineer, Specialty Product Research & Applications Engineering

Schoen, Jerry W. AK Steel Corporation 705 Curtis Street Middletown OH 45043 513-425-5164 513-425-5Smith, Robert Product Manager Federal Pacific 601 Old Airport Rd Bristol VA 24201 276-645-8836 N/A 

Energy Efficiency Advocate Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC)

1152 15th St NW Suite 300

Waltner, Meg Washington DC 20005 202-513-6270 202-289-1Young, Daniel Project Manager Energy Solutions 1610 Harrison Street Oakland CA 94612 N/A N/A 

Contacts Included: 11 

01/10/2012 10:25:43
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of J.B. and J.S., children, * From the 3 26 th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 10101

- CX

.

No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 305

- C V * May 3

, 20 2 3

* Memorandum Opinion by Williams , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error

in the order below

. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, we reverse the

trial court’s termination order insofar as it terminated the parental right s of the mother

to the children involved in this case, and we affirm the order of the trail court in all

other respects. We remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings. Any

proceeding on remand must be commenced within 180 days of this co urt’s mandate.
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.                  

###### National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

###### National Endowment for the Arts

# AGENCY:

National Endowment for the Arts.

# ACTION:

Notice of meetings.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that 1 meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference or videoconference.

# DATES:

                        See the                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         section for individual meeting times and dates. All meetings are Eastern time and ending times are approximate:                    

# ADDRESSES:

National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from David Travis, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;                         *travisd@arts.gov,*                         or call 202-682-5001.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chair of March 11, 2022, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 10.

The upcoming meetings are:

*FY25 Federal Advisory Committee on International Exhibitions*                     (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.                

*Date and time:*                     March 12, 2024; 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.                

Dated: February 6, 2024.

David Travis,

Specialist, National Endowment for the Arts.

[FR Doc. 2024-02693 Filed 2-8-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
#### Wilford HUBBARD et al., Appellants, v. Emmett E. DOOLEY et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 29, 1959.

Tribell & Tribell, Pineville, for appellants.

Alva Hollon, Hazard, for appellees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

A truck owned by defendant appellee Dooley struck and severely injured the two infant plaintiff appellants. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to prove the truck was being operated by defendant’s agent on his business.

Defendant had authorized his employee, Sergent, to drive the truck from Cincinnati to Woodbine, Kentucky, and on the return trip to bring back a load of cord wood. Sergent was not to use the truck for any other purpose, and he was instructed not to let any one else drive it. The night before Sergent was supposed to return, the truck was involved in the accident somewhere between Pineville and Harlan. No evidence was introduced to show who was in the truck at the time or who was driving. The complaint alleges that one Middleton was driving, a person unknown to defendant. This man and Sergent were both in the courtroom during the trial but were not called as witnesses.

 Plaintiffs rely on the case of Farrell v. Pinson Transfer Co., Ky., 293 S.W.2d 170. In that case we held that where an employee is in the employer’s truck, even though it is being driven by a third party, the presumption arises that the vehicle was being used in the course of the *819owner’s business. However, the presumption could not possibly arise unless it is shown that the vehicle at the time of the accident was in charge of an employee. As before mentioned, the proof does not establish that any employee of defendant was in the truck.

Even assuming defendant’s employee was in the truck at the time of the accident, the presumption was rebutted by the uncontradicted testimony of the defendant to the effect that the employee had no authority to operate it in Bell County and was not on defendant’s business there. Any presumption favorable to plaintiffs was overcome by defendant’s evidence and the facts shown by this record. See Rawlings v. Clay Motor Co., 287 Ky. 604, 154 S.W.2d 711; Sharp v. Faulkner, 292 Ky. 179, 166 S.W.2d 62. The plaintiffs failed to establish agency, and the directed verdict was proper.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000725876
<NAME>                        Gateway Industries, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    DOLLARS

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5,465
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     10
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,499
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             75
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           4
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,480
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,559
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   0
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 654
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (382)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (382)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (382)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.11)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 527 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 527

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel EMPRESS.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, 
United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
App. U.S.C. 883), as applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
coastwise trade for the vessel EMPRESS, (United States official number 
975018).

            Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 527

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel EMPRESS.
```
8040.5 09/2910b



# f,4A-2009- 

# 122~ 9. Contacts. Withwhom outside the FAAhasthis proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response National Business Aircr.lft Association EliCotti 12/4/09 

## - 12/15109 Regional Airline Association Dave Lotterer 1214/09 

## - 12/15/09 Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 12/4109 

## - 12/15/09 ATA Craig Fabian 12/4/09 

## - 12/15/09 ATA M Lopez 12/4/09 

## - 12/15109 Boeing Ron Lockhart 12/3/09 Fire Fighting Enterprises Ltd. lanSteel 12/4/09 Av-Ex Aviation Excellence Phil Rogers 12/3/09 Ameron Global Product Support Dave Offill 12/3/09 HRD Aero Systems Inc Brent Silva 12/4/09 FedEx "BillWilliams J2/15/09

Page 1\2-5
## United States Court of Appeals

**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 23

- 1039

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Michael G. Wells

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

Submitted: September 1 1 , 2023 Filed: September 14, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Wells appeals after the district court 1 denied his motions to modify a 2003 stipulation for judgment by consent and associated judgment, for

1 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.-2- reconsideration, and for a hearing on reconsideration. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

R eview ing the parties’ arguments and the circumstances of this case, th is

court finds no basis to reverse the district court’s orders. The district court did not

abuse its d iscretion in denying Wells’s motion to modify the judgment by consent. See City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa , 702 F.3d 1147, 1152, 1154 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty.

Jail , 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992) (party seeking modification of consent decree bears burden of establishing significant change in circumstances warrants revision of decree). Th is court has also considered Wells’s challenges to the denial of his motions to reconsider and for a hearing, and finds no error. See Arnold v. Wood

, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (motion for relief from judgment or order is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and requires showing of exceptional circumstances warranting relief).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Form of Specimen Certificate of Class A Common Stock



 Exhibit 4.1 
 FORM OF SPECIMEN CERTIFICATE 
 FOR FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR’S 
 CLASS A COMMON STOCK 
 

 








 2 
  

 

 
  
 This certificate also evidences and entitles the
holder hereof to certain rights as set forth in an Agreement between Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. and Mellon Investor Services LLC, dated as of
                        , 2004, as it may be amended from time to time (the “Agreement”), the terms of which are
hereby incorporated herein by reference and a copy of which is on file at the principal executive offices of Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. Under certain circumstances, as set forth in the Agreement, such Class A Rights (as defined in the
Agreement) will be evidenced by separate certificates and will no longer be evidenced by this certificate. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. will mail to the holder of this certificate a copy of the Agreement without charge after receipt of a written
request therefor. As set forth in the Agreement, Class A Rights beneficially owned by any Person (as defined in the Agreement) who becomes an Acquiring Person (as defined in the Agreement) become null and void. 
  

 2
#### City of Canton, Appellee, *v.*Van Voorhis, Appellant.

(No. 27485

Decided April 12, 1939.)

*Mr. Paul G. Weber,*city solicitor, for appellee.

*Mr. E. E. Emmons,*for appellant.

_ It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the *320reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6993

LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER,

Attorney General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-03-3201-18BC-3)

Submitted: August 25, 2004 Decided: September 10, 2004

Before WIDENER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Edward Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,

Chief Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant

Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Larry Edward Hendricks seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000),

and denying his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 59(e). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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

for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As to claims dismissed by a district court

solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will

not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and

(2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Hendricks has not satisfied either

standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 
- 3 -

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
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1369 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1369

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 24, 2012

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1021 Pennsylvania Avenue in Hartshorne, Oklahoma, as the ``Warren 
                         Lindley Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. WARREN LINDLEY POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1021 Pennsylvania Avenue in Hartshorne, Oklahoma, as the 
``Warren Lindley Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Warren 
Lindley Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1392 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1392

  To provide assistance to veterans and veteran-owned businesses with 
       respect to contract opportunities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2011

 Mr. Fitzpatrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide assistance to veterans and veteran-owned businesses with 
       respect to contract opportunities, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness to Veterans Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR VETERANS AND VETERAN-OWNED BUSINESSES.

    (a) Federal Government Contract Opportunities.--In evaluating any 
bid or proposal received in response to a solicitation relating to a 
Federal contract, the head of a Federal department or agency shall 
provide to a veteran or veteran-owned business any preference that any 
individual or business is eligible to receive with respect to that 
contract, if that preference takes into consideration race or gender, 
without regard to whether the veteran or veteran-owned business would 
otherwise qualify for that preference.
    (b) State and Local Government Contract Opportunities.--As a 
condition of receiving Federal funding, in evaluating any bid or 
proposal received in response to a solicitation relating to a State or 
local contract that involves the use of Federal funding, the head of a 
State or local government shall provide to a veteran or veteran-owned 
business any preference that any individual or business is eligible to 
receive with respect to that contract, if that preference takes into 
consideration race or gender, without regard to whether the veteran or 
veteran-owned business would otherwise qualify for that preference.
    (c) Definitions.--In this Act, the following definitions apply:
            (1) Veteran.--The term ``veteran'' has the meaning given 
        that term in section 101(2) of title 38, United States Code.
            (2) Veteran-owned business.--The term ``veteran-owned 
        business'' means a business--
                    (A) not less than 51 percent of which is owned by 
                one or more veterans or, in the case of any publicly 
                owned business, not less than 51 percent of the stock 
                of which is owned by one or more veterans; and
                    (B) the management and daily business operations of 
                which are controlled by one or more veterans.
                                 <all>
```