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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-24-2024]

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the State of New Jersey, Department of State, grantee of FTZ 44, requesting an expansion of Subzone 44P on behalf of Givaudan Fragrances Corporation (Givaudan), in Mount Olive, New Jersey. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on February 7, 2024.

                    The application requests authority to expand Subzone 44P to include the following new site:                     *Site 4*                     (5.93 acres) 313 Waterloo Valley Road, Mount Olive, New Jersey. No authorization for additional production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed expanded subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 44.                

In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

                    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:                     *ftz@trade.gov.*                     The closing period for their receipt is March 25, 2024. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 8, 2024.                

                    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information Section” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via                     *www.trade.gov/​ftz.*

                    For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at                     *Christopher.Kemp@trade.gov.*

Dated: February 7, 2024.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-02896 Filed 2-12-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### UNITED FUEL GAS COMPANY, Appellant, v. John C. CLARKE et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 5, 1965.

W. H. Dysard, Dysard, Johnson & Welch, Ashland (C. E. Goodwin; H. L. Snyder, Jr., Charleston, W. Va., of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas E. Phipps, Ashland, for appellees.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

This action was filed by appellant to condemn a right of way across the southeast portion of appellees’ farm for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining a pipe line for the transmission of gas in and through the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The jury awarded appellees $1,192.50 as the reasonable market value of the easements taken (approximately three acres) and the further sum of $6000 as damages resulting to appellees’ adjacent 1125-acre tract.

Several grounds are urged for reversal of the judgment, one of which is that the verdict is based on incompetent and prejudicial testimony.

In substantiating the claim of damage, the trial court, over the objection of appellant, permitted appellees’ valuation witnesses to testify that the portion of appellees’ farm located near the easements being taken was susceptible of being laid off into eight building lots, each worth $1000. Also, testimony to the effect that the prospective lot values would be adversely affected by the taking and would result in $8000 damage to appellees’ farm. Testimony of a similar character was held incompetent and prejudicial in Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Lawton, Ky., *845386 S.W.2d 466, (rendered January 21, 1965) and in Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Evans, Ky., 361 S.W.2d 766. We adhere to the rule set forth in the foregoing cases and hold that the testimony ■concerning prospective lot values was incompetent and prejudicial in that it result-ad in excessive damages being awarded.

It is next contended that the court erred in refusing to let a witness testify as -to the value of an easement the appellant Rad formerly acquired from appellees but which was being presently abandoned. The ■short answer to this contention is that, in the absence of an avowal or other showing .as to what the witness would testify to, this Court will not review the question of error. East Kentucky Rural Electric Cooperative Corp., Inc. v. Smith et al., Ky., 310 S.W.2d 535.

Other alleged errors are specifically reserved.

The judgment is reversed with directions to set it aside and to grant appellant a new rtrial.

HILL, Judge, dissenting.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 16 - 00213 - CV
IN THE INTEREST OF J .P.M., JR., W.R.M., AND A.M. M. , CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 364th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011 - 500,199, Honorable William R. Eichman II, Presiding



### August 11 , 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, J.P.M., father of J.P.M., Jr., W.R.M

. , and A.M.M., attempts to appeal six interlocutory orders issued in a suit for modification of a child support order . As the orders are not final , appealable orders, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction. On February 22, 2016, the Office of t he Attorney General filed suit to modify a 2012 child support order concerning J.P.M., Jr., W.R.M., and A.M.M. Appellant, an inmate, answered the suit pro se and moved for appointment of counsel, for discovery from the Internal Revenue Serv ice and Social Security Administration free of cost , and to appear at all hearings in person or by telephone

. The motions were denied on April 18, 2016. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for rehearing concerning his request s2

for discovery at no cost and to appear at hearings in person by bench warrant or by telephone . He also moved for findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the trial co urt’s rulings. The motion s were denied on May 17, 2016 , and appellant filed this appeal. Questioning w hether we had jurisdiction over the appeal, we notified appellant by letter that it did not appear that a final , appealable order or judgment had been entered in this case

. We directed appellant to show grounds for continuing the appeal by August 1, 2016, or we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a). Appellant has yet to respond to the court’s letter. Generally, appellate courts have jurisdict ion over final judgments only. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims. Id. We have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdictio n. Stary v. DeBord , 967 S.W.2d 352, 352

– 53 (Tex. 1998). Because the order s from which appellant attempts to appeal do not finally dispose o f all parties or claims , they are interlocutory

. Finding no statutory autho r ity allowing immediate appeal, we lack jurisdiction to review and must dismiss the appeal. We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction and for appellant’s failure to comply with an order of this court

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 42.3(a ) , (c)

. Per Curiam
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Bradley Ray McClintock v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-11-00572-CR

Trial court case number: 1280089

Trial court: 182nd District Court of Harris County

The Court of Criminal Appeals has remanded this case to this court for consideration of 

“whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule” applies. McClintock v. State, No. 

PD-0925-13, 2014 WL 4843959, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 1, 2014). Because the parties have 

not briefed this issue in this court, we order the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the 

issue of whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. See id. at *4 (“Neither 

party mentioned the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in their briefs on direct 

appeal.”). 

The appellant’s supplemental brief is due 30 days after the date of this order, the State’s 

supplemental brief is due 30 days after the date the appellant’s brief is filed, and the appellant’s 

supplemental reply brief, if any, is due 20 days after the date the State’s brief is filed. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.6.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 3, 2014
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-20653

Summary Calendar

_____________________

JOSEPH P. PEROT;

MARSHA ARRIENS PEROT,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

McDONALD’S CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CA H 96-1136)

_________________________________________________________________

April 3, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph P. and Marsha Arriens Perot appeal the district court’s

judgment confirming the arbitration award against them. They

contend that (1) the arbitrator erred by refusing to grant a short

continuance for their new counsel prior to arbitration; (2) the

arbitrator failed to reveal his partiality to McDonald’s by not

disclosing that either he or his law firm represented McDonald’s in

real estate transactions; (3) the arbitrator exceeded his power by

awarding compensation, administration fees, and expenses; and (4)
- 2 -

the district court did not review all of the evidence prior to

issuing the final judgment. Pursuant to our de novo review, we

conclude that the Perots have not raised any grounds to support

vacating the arbitrator’s award. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is

AFFIRMED
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 9182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02707]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board's Committee on Awards and Facilities 
(A&F) hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the 
transaction of National Science Board business pursuant to the NSF Act 
and the Government in the Sunshine Act.

TIME AND DATE: Monday, February 12, 2024, from 1:00-2:00 p.m. Eastern.

PLACE: This meeting will be via videoconference through the National 
Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda is: Committee Chair's opening 
remarks about the agenda; Discussion of the Astro2020 Decadal 
Recommendations; Vote on proposed resolution.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Chris Blair, [email protected], 703/292-7000. Meeting information and 
updates may be found at www.nsf.gov/nsb.

Christopher Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2024-02707 Filed 2-6-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ADAM P. DOOLEY, DOC #T03310, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2089 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 21, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge. Adam P. Dooley, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. KELLY, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20111

USDC No. 4:10-CR-763-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL GIVENTER, also known as Michael Blanc,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Giventer appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to

revoke the magistrate judge’s order of detention pending his trial on criminal

charges related to bankruptcy proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142, 3145. Under

Rule 9(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a “district court must

state in writing, or orally on the record, the reasons for an order regarding the

release or detention of a defendant in a criminal case.” To date, the district court

has not given its reasons for denying Giventer’s motion. Accordingly, IT IS

ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the district court for the limited

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 28, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 12-20111 Document: 00511804452 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2012
No. 12-20111

purpose of obtaining written reasons for the denial of Giventer’s motion to

revoke the order of detention.

2

Case: 12-20111 Document: 00511804452 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2012
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Otish Mountain Diamond Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Massimiliano Pozzoni, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
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/ Massimiliano Pozzoni
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                 MASSIMILIANO POZZONI
                                 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                                 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

December 21, 2004

<PAGE>
Fw: Additional TSD's RobertJ Wayland to: Cortney_Higgins 03/10/2011 05:56 PM Cc: Bill Maxwell

Cortney -

Attached below is OAP's response to my questions regarding documentation for the retirements and how the TVA units were treated. Please take a look at these materials, and if you need more - just let us know.

thanx!

bob

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-1045 Cell: (919) 306-2290 Fax: (919) 541-5450

e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

********************************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

********************************************************* ----- Forwarded by RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/10/2011 05:54 PM From: Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Nick Hutson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Erich Eschmann/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 03/10/2011 05:51 PM Subject: Fw: Additional TSD's

Hi Bob,

We gave OMB full documentation of retirements in the Excel spreadsheet included in Bill Maxwell's email to OMB on March 4 (recopied at the bottom of this chain).

The answer on the TVA question is that we have no way to "idle" plants in IPM, so the only way to prevent their generation in our analysis was to retire them.

I hope that helps.Sincerely, Jeb Stenhouse Clean Air Markets Division Environmental Protection Agency 202-343-9781

----- Forwarded by Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US on 03/10/2011 05:48 PM -----

From: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 03/04/2011 05:18 PM Subject: Additional TSD's

Cortney --

Here are some additional TSDs.

Thanks.

Section 5.3 Coal to Gas Retrofit v3.docx New documentation on coalto-gas switching.

TSD_Coal-to-Gas Conversions_to OMB 03-04-11.doc TSD on fuel switching.

Planned and Projected Retirements.xlsx List of unit retirements (a) before the base case is modeled, (b) modeled in the base case, and (c) modeled in the policy case. Note that we had previously listed 20 GW of planned retirements; this was a copy error. The actual planned retirement capacity is 11.4 GW. This issue does not affect any regulatory materials already in interagency review (it was implemented correctly in the modeling). 3 GW of this retiring capacity is based on information available in EIA Form 860 (2009). The remaining planned retirements were identified through external sources and verified by EPA using proprietary and publically available information. "2015 Base Retirements" and "2015 ToxR Retirements" identify all units projected to close in the IPM 2015 base case and Proposed Toxics Rule case, respectively.

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919-541-5430 FAX: 919-541-5450
ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR HEATING PRODUCTS

PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT (Documents List):

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTERS

=========

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Analytic Framework, Comments from Interested Parties, and DOE Responses

Chapter 3: Market and Technology Assessment

Chapter 4: Screening Analysis

Chapter 5: Engineering Analysis

Chapter 6: Markups to Determine Product Price

Chapter 7: Energy Use Characterization

Chapter 8: Life­Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

Chapter 9: Shipments Analysis

Chapter 10 National Impact Analysis

Chapter 11: Life­Cycle Cost Sub­Group Analysis

Chapter 12: Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Chapter 13: Utility Impact Analysis

Chapter 14: Employment Impact Analysis

Environmental Assessment for Residential Heating Products

Regulatory Impact Analysis for Residential Heating Products

APPENDICES

==========

Appendix 6­A: Detailed Data for Product Price Markups

Appendix 7­A: RECS 2001 Values and Variables

Appendix 7­B: Hot Water Draw Model

Appendix 7­C: LCC Energy Use Calculations

Appendix 7­D: Weather Data and Temperature Parameters for LCC Analysis

Appendix 7­E: Derivation of Heating Load for Pool Heaters and Direct Heating

Equipment

Appendix 8­A: Installation Cost Determination

Appendix 8­B: Maintenance and Repair Cost Determination

Appendix 8­C: Lifetime Distributions

Appendix 8­D: Discount Rates Distributions

Appendix 8­E: Monthly Energy Price Factor Calculations

Appendix 8­F: Rebuttable Payback Analysis Results

Appendix 8­G: User Instructions for the Rebuttable Payback Analysis Spreadsheet

Appendix 8­H: User Instructions for the LCC Analysis Spreadsheet

Appendix 8­I: Uncertainty and Variability

Appendix 9­A: User Instructions for Shipments and National Energy Savings Spreadsheet

Appendix 12­A: Preliminary Manufacturer Interview Guides

i

EE-2006-STD-0129 and EERE-2006-BT-STD-0129 COMMENT 32.2
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-380-CR

RUDOLPH ANTHONY GARZA APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371

ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered the “Appellant's Motion To Waive And Dismiss

Appeal And To Withdraw Notice Of Appeal.” The motion complies with rule

42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). No

decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER, and LIVINGSTON, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
DELIVERED: February 4, 2010
#### Frederick OLIVAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 31006.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 11, 1959.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant pleaded guilty before the court and was assessed a two year term in the penitentiary for wilfully refusing to provide for the support of his four children, ranging in age from six weeks to four years.

Judgment was entered and sentence pronounced on September 9, 1958, and execution of the sentence was suspended and probation was granted.

No appeal was prosecuted from this conviction.

Among the conditions of probation were that appellant “(A) Commit no offense against the laws of this or any other state, * * *. (I) Support his dependents as follows: Defendant shall pay $15.00 per week to the District Clerk’s Office, Howard County, Texas, for the support of his children.”

On February 23, 1959, motion was filed by the district attorney alleging that appellant had violated the terms of probation. Affidavits of the probation officer and the mother of the children were attached which were to the effect that appellant had been wilfully failing and refusing to provide for the support and maintenance of his children; had become intoxicated on more than one occasion, and had come to the house where the children were while drunk.

*772The evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion to revoke showed that appellant worked on various occasions after he was granted probation; that he received from $15 to $40’ a week after January 1, 1959; that he was twice arrested for being drunk in a public place; that he was drunk in a public place on both occasions; that from September 9, 1958, to November 17, 1958, he paid a total of $117 through the District Clerk’s office; that he made no further payments through said office after November 17, 1958; that the last time appellant brought his wife anything was the first week in December when he brought two pairs of shoes for the children.

This appeal is from the order entered at the conclusion of the hearing revoking probation.

We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge.

The judgment is affirmed.