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

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         February 8, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, USPS Ground Advantage®, and Parcel Select Contract 4 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-174, CP2024-180.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-02533 Filed 2-7-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD WELCH,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner

of Social Security,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-56850

D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00740-MLG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Marc L. Goldman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 8, 2013**

Pasadena, California

Before: FERNANDEZ, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Ronald Welch appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint

against the Commissioner of Social Security for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

FILED

OCT 17 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the district court’s judgment. 

We vacate and remand. 

The Social Security Appeals Council dismissed as untimely Welch’s request

for review of a decision by an administrative law judge denying his application for

disability benefits. Welch’s attorney claims that he timely filed the request for review

by facsimile, as permitted by agency rules. To prove that he did so, Welch’s attorney

provided the Council with, among other documents, a transmission log with the

Council’s fax number. 

Although the Council’s dismissal order is not a final decision, the district court

nonetheless had jurisdiction to review it under 42 U.S.C § 405(g) because Welch

asserted a colorable constitutional claim. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 109

(1977); Matlock v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 492, 493–94 (9th Cir. 1990). We recently held

that due process requires the Commissioner to give “some explanation” when

dismissing an apparently valid request for a hearing. Dexter v. Colvin, No. 12-35074,

2013 WL 5434699, at *3 (9th Cir. Sept. 30, 2013). Because Welch provided the

Council with evidence that, if credited, would establish that he timely filed the request

for review, due process requires the Council to provide some explanation why it

concluded to the contrary.

2
We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand to the district court to

remand to the Commissioner to consider the evidence that Welch timely filed his

request for review and either to explain her decision dismissing the request or to treat

it as timely.

VACATED and REMANDED.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>      0000727087
<NAME>     First Capital Institutional Real Estate, Ltd - 2

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                     4,573,400
<SECURITIES>                               1,051,100
<RECEIVABLES>                                 99,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           5,774,300
<PP&E>                                    46,298,600
<DEPRECIATION>                            13,818,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            44,166,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1,345,300
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                42,666,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              44,166,200
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           7,003,700
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              2,603,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             318,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            3,203,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        3,203,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                               3,203,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  32.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  32.74


</TABLE>
L'Jl'. 

^[r,\RT;viENTOF 

•;Fr OPERAT!0!'"S 

HA\ 'U A !!: ^. 

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. 

Bob Wonlgonnery 

Vice President- Properties 

P.O Box 36611 

Dallas. Texas 75235-1611 

si-t-zgz-wes 

Facsimile-. 214-792-40W 

E-mail' bob. monigomefy®wnco.com 

August 19,2010 

Honorable Raymond LaHood 

Secretary of Transportation 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Docket DOT-OST-2010-0124 

Proposal of Jackson-Evers International Airport for a Small 

Community Air Service Development Grant' 

Dear Secretary LaHood, 

Southwest Airlines is pleased to support the ^plication of Jackson-Evers International 

Airport (JAN) for a Small Community Air Service Development (SCASD) grant aimed at 

increasing marketing activity in the Jackson market area. 

The Jackson Airport continues to see decreases in passenger traffic despite the 

improving economy. Within our own network, Southwest Airlines has seen that load factors 

at JAN have lagged behind the overall system average. We believe that expanded marketing 

efforts by the airport, which would be facilitated by SCASD grant funds, could contribute to 

improvements. We would further note that all airlines would beriefit from this marketing 

activity, not just Southwest Airlines. 

For these reasons, we fully support the SCASD application of Jackson-Evers 

International Airport and ask that you give it favorable consideration. Please feel free to 

contact me should you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

/S^ ' /A ^ 

Bob Montgomery' 

Vice President - Prdp"erties 

cc: Aloha Ley, Associate Director, Small Community Air Service Development Program 

Dirk Vanderleest, Chief Executive Officer, Jackson Municipal Airport Authority
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.                  

###### African Development Foundation

# AGENCY:

African Development Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) will hold its quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss the agency's programs and administration. This meeting will occur at the USADF office.

# DATES:

The meeting date is Tuesday, February 27, 2024, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting location is USADF, 1400 I St. NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kerline Perry, (202) 233-8805.

*Authority:*                         Public Law 96-533 (22 U.S.C. 290h).                    

Dated: February 8, 2024.

Wendy Carver,

Business Manager.

[FR Doc. 2024-02914 Filed 2-12-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6117-01-P
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0002407 19-AUG-2014 08:10 AM
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7230

BRONSON HOWARD TUCKER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. DANA RATLIFFE

- WALKER, Warden Lunenberg Correctional Center , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Glen E. Conrad , District Judge. ( 7:16

- cv - 00490

- GEC

- RSB )

Submitted : March 29, 2018 Decided: July 10, 2018

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Abram John Pafford, ARENT FOX, LLP, Washington, D

. C

. , for Appellant. Aaron Jennings Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bi nding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bronson Howard Tucker seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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, 4 84 (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 petition states a debatabl e claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tucker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appea l. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7278

SHAIDON BLAKE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT L. GREEN, Secretary, Public Safety & Correctional Services,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:20-cv-03563-PWG)

Submitted: March 24, 2022 Decided: April 27, 2022

Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shaidon Blake, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shaidon Blake appeals the district court’s order denying his request for injunctive 

relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s order. Blake v. Green, No. 8:20-cv-03563-PWG (D. Md. July 15, 2021). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Merchants Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Janet P. Spitler, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Merchants Bancshares, Inc.By:/s/  Janet P. SpitlerJanet P. SpitlerChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Principal Accounting OfficerMarch 14, 2011Date
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the quarterly report of UbiquiTel, Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Gary D. Forsee, Chief
Executive Officer of each of UbiquiTel, Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of UbiquiTel, Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating
Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  |  |                                                                                   
|----------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|September 8, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Gary D. Forsee                                                                
|                  |  |  |  | Gary D. Forsee Chief Executive Officer UbiquiTel, Inc. UbiquiTel Operating Company
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 634

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide a financial incentive

for States to reduce expenditures under the medicaid program, and

for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 28 (legislative day, MARCH 27), 1995

Mr. D’AMATO (for himself and Mr. DOLE) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide

a financial incentive for States to reduce expenditures

under the medicaid program, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Medicaid Savings

5 Incentive Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. MEDICAID SAVINGS INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

7 (a) INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.—Section 1903(a) of the

8 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)) is amended—
2

•S 634 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and

2 inserting ‘‘; plus’’; and

3 (2) by adding at the end the following new

4 paragraph:

5 ‘‘(8) in the case of a State to which subsection (x)

6 applies, the amount of the incentive payment determined

7 under such subsection.’’.

8 (b) INCENTIVE PAYMENT.—Section 1903 of the So9 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b) is amended by adding

10 at the end the following new subsection:

11 ‘‘(x)(1) For purposes of subsection (a)(8), if a State

12 achieves a rate of growth for a fiscal year which is less

13 than the State baseline rate of growth for such fiscal year

14 established under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall make

15 an incentive payment to the State for the fiscal year in

16 the amount determined under paragraph (2).

17 ‘‘(2) The amount of any incentive payment shall be

18 equal to the amount that is 20 percent of the difference

19 between the amount that the Federal Government would

20 have paid to a State in a fiscal year for providing medical

21 assistance in accordance with this title, if State expendi22 tures for providing such assistance had increased by the

23 State baseline rate of growth established under paragraph

24 (3) for such fiscal year, and the amount that the Federal

25 Government paid to such State in the fiscal year for pro-
3

•S 634 IS

1 viding medical assistance in accordance with this title

2 using the actual State rate of growth for State expendi3 tures for providing such assistance.

4 ‘‘(3) At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Sec5 retary shall determine for that fiscal year a baseline rate

6 of growth for medicaid expenditures for each State with

7 a State plan approved under this title based on—

8 ‘‘(A) the historical rate of growth for such ex9 penditures in the State; and

10 ‘‘(B) such other factors as the Secretary deems

11 appropriate.’’.

Æ
#### COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Appellant, v. Roscoe TERRY et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 5, 1965.

Joh'n’B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., William A. Lamkin, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Reed D. Anderson, Atty., Madisonvillfe, for appellant.

Henry Spencer, Moss Noble, Jackson, for appellees.

MILLIKEN, Judge."

The appellees owned a three-year old, insulated, five-room frame home with a forced air coal furnace and up-to-date plumbing and wiring, situated beautifully on about an acre and a half of farm land which was taken by the State for the construction of the Mountain Parkway Extension, near Jackson in Breathitt County. - A little over eight acres of the farm were left. The jury gave its verdict in the following form and judgment for the total amount was entered accordingly:

> “Value of the 1.41 acres

> condemned $ 4,000.00

> Damages to the remainder 12,000.00

> Our total award therefor is 16,000.00”

Although it is not relevant as evidence, it is interesting to note that an identical total award had been made by the county court which the State appealed to the Circuit Court.

The Department of Highways complains on this appeal that “there is no evidence whatsoever that will support the $12,000 awarded by the jury in its verdict as damages to the remainder.” Whatever the form of the verdict, it is apparent to us that a substantial allowance had to be made for the taking of the home or house itself and there is credible testimony that the value of the house alone was $13,000 to $14,000. Loss of the home necessarily must be reflected in the allowance for remainder damage, for it is reflected nowhere else. It is implicit, of course, that the Department contends that the total award was excessive, but we do not find it so on the basis of this record and the briefs tendered to support counsels’ contentions. According *875to the owners their best farm land was taken and according to one of their witnesses the beautiful location of the home on the land was a factor he considered in his appraisal of the market value before the taking. This case was tried before Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Sherrod (1963), Ky., 367 S.W.2d 844.

We are not unmindful of our decisions holding that a proper aggregate verdict cannot stand if an item in the verdict is beyond the evidence on the item (Pierson v. Commonwealth, Department of Highways, Ky., 350 S.W.2d 487, and Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Cardinal Hill Nursery, Inc., Ky., 380 S.W.2d 249, 253), but the way in which this' case was tried and the instructions given impel us to conclude that the principle of the aforesaid decisions is not applicable here.

We are not persuaded that the amount allowed was excessive so the judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Raybor Management, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Jeffrey D. Hoyal, Chief Executive Officer, and David A. Yost, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/    JEFFREY D. HOYALChief Executive Officer May 10, 2004




/s/    DAVID A. YOSTChief Financial Officer May 10, 2004




This certification accompanies
this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.