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

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 14485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05610]

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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List Proposed Addition

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed addition to the procurement list.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add a service to the Procurement 
List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who 
are blind or have other severe disabilities.

DATES: Comments Must Be Received On or Before: 4/14/2014.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202-
4149.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT:  Barry S. 
Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email 
CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide 
interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed 
action.

Addition

    If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of 
the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to 
procure the service listed below from the nonprofit agency employing 
persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
    The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement 
List for provision by the nonprofit agency listed:

Service

Service Type/Location: Base Supply Center Service, U.S. Army, 
Tobyhanna Army Depot, 11 Hap Arnold Blvd., Tobyhanna, PA.
NPA: Central Association for the Blind & Visually Impaired, Utica, 
NY
Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE ARMY, W0ML USA DEP TOBYHANNA, 
TOBYHANNA, PA.

Barry S. Lineback,
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2014-05610 Filed 3-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
```
#### N. A. LEFEVRE et al., Appellants, v. CARLTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Appellees.

No. 3377.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

July 2, 1956.

C. O, McMillan, Stephenville, for appellants.

Sam Mr Russell, Stephenville, Truman E. Roberts, -Hamilton, for appellees.

McDONAUD, Chief Justice.

An election was held in the Carlton Independent School District whereby the District voted to raise the school tax, and to., issue bonds for school construction -and re-. pair. Plaintiffs, who are resident taxpaying voters of the Carlton Independent • School District, filed this suit contesting the results of the election. Contestees filed a number of special exceptions to plaintiffs’ petition, which were by the trial court sus-5 tained. Plaintiffs refused to amend their pleading, whereupon the trial court dis-, missed plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs appealed',' causing transcript to be filed in this court. No statement of facts has been filed. Plain-'5 tiffs have, filed no brief within the 30-day period prescribed by Rule 414, Texas Rules' of Civil Procedure, nor shown *any*causé-why such has not been filed.

•From the foregoing it is .our view that plaintiffs’ appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. .See..Rule 415 T.R. C.P. and cases there collated. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ appeal.is dismissed.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2014-0572

 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM027AD

737-53A1108 --- R6, 1/9/14

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### Clarence O’SULLIVAN et al., Appellants, v. Alfred S. PORTWOOD et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 31, 1958.

*774Robert M. Spragens, Lebanon, for appellants.

Thomas P. Bell, Lexington, Lester H. Spalding, Lebanon, J. D. Buckman, Jr., Frankfort, for appellees.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

The appeal is from a judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court sustaining an order of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board which granted appellees George and Car-rico a retail package liquor license and a retail beer license for certain premises in the City of Lebanon.

Appellants urge that the licenses were unlawfully issued because the appellee George holds a federal wholesale liquor dealer’s license without possessing the corresponding requisite state license. To support their contention, they rely upon KRS 243.020(2), which provides:

> “The holding of any permit from the United States Government to traffic in alcoholic beverages without the corresponding requisite state and local licenses shall in all cases raise a prima facie presumption that the holder of the United States permit is unlawfully trafficking in alcoholic beverages.”

The applications for the licenses in question were approved by the local administrator as required by KRS 243.370. When the applications were filed with the A.B.C. Board in accordance with KRS 243.380, the appellants, who operate a retail liquor business in Lebanon, protested against the issuance of the licenses on the identical ground asserted on this appeal.

At the hearing before the A.B.C. Board it was shown that appellee George held a federal wholesale liquor permit without possessing a similar state license. However, an agent of the Board testified that ap-pellee George had not been convicted of violating any of the alcoholic beverage control laws. There was other proof to the effect that appellee George had complied with the regulations of the Board.

Since the proof introduced before the Board rebutted the statutory presumption that appellee George was unlawfully trafficking in alcoholic beverages, the objection raised to the issuance of these licenses was proven to be without merit. Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court upholding the order of the Board was correct.

Judgment affirmed.
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 Annual Report of Capital Gold Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gifford
A. Dieterle, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Gifford A. Dieterle
                                ------------------------------
                                Gifford A. Dieterle
                                Chief Executive Officer
                                June 24, 2005
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-10075 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. GUILLERMO LORENZO URISTA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:10-CR-9-1
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appo i n t e d to represent Guillermo Lorenzo Urista has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Urista has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

c o u n s el’ s a s s e s s m e nt that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellat e review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 19 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-10075 Document: 00511891145 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2012No. 11-10075

counsel is excused from further responsibilities he r e i n, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-10075 Document: 00511891145 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2012
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Petrol Oil and Gas, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, LorenMoll, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of 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. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ Loren Moll |
|--------|----------------|

|   | Loren Moll |
|--------|------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer and |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | Principal Financial Officer |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | August 20, 2007 |
|--------|-----------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1465 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1465

 To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to treat the Commonwealth 
 of the Northern Mariana Islands in the same manner as Guam is treated.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2011

  Mr. Sablan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to treat the Commonwealth 
 of the Northern Mariana Islands in the same manner as Guam is treated.

    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 ``Assuring You Uniform Dietary 
Assistance (AYUDA) Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Definitions.--Section 3 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
(7 U.S.C. 2012) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (s) by inserting ``the Commonwealth of 
        the Northern Mariana Islands,'' after ``Guam'', and
            (2) in subsection (u)(3) by inserting ``the Commonwealth of 
        the Northern Mariana Islands,'' after ``Guam,''.
    (b) Eligibility Standards.--Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act 
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b) by inserting ``the Commonwealth of 
        the Northern Mariana Islands,'' after ``Guam,'', and
            (2) in subsection (c)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``and Guam,'' and 
                inserting ``Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern 
                Mariana Islands,'', and
                    (B) in the last sentence by striking ``or Guam'' 
                and inserting ``Guam, or the Commonwealth of the 
                Northern Mariana Islands'', and
            (3) in subsection (e)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)(B)--
                            (i) in the heading by striking ``Guam.'' 
                        and inserting ``Guam and the commonwealth of 
                        the northern mariana islands.'',
                            (ii) in clause (i) by inserting ``and the 
                        Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands'' 
                        after ``Guam'', and
                            (iii) in clause (ii) by inserting ``and the 
                        Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands'' 
                        after ``Guam'', and
                    (B) in paragraph (6)(B) by inserting ``the 
                Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,'' after 
                ``Guam,''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on 
October 1, 2012.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT10.5**

 

**NOTATIONOF GUARANTEE**

** **

For value received, each Guarantor (which termincludes any successor Person under the Indenture) has, jointly and severally,unconditionally guaranteed, to the extent set forth in the Indenture andsubject to the provisions in the Indenture dated as of February 23, 2004 (the “*Indenture*”) among UbiquiTel Operating Company (the *“Company”*), UbiquiTel Inc., as guarantor, and The Bank ofNew  York, as trustee (the “*Trustee*”), (a) the due and punctual payment of the principalof, premium and Liquidated Damages, if any, and interest on, the Notes, whetherat maturity, by acceleration, redemption or otherwise, the due and punctualpayment of interest on overdue principal of and interest on the Notes, if any,if lawful, and the due and punctual performance of all other obligations of theCompany to the Holders or the Trustee all in accordance with the terms of theIndenture and (b) in case of any extension of time of payment or renewal of anyNotes or any of such other obligations, that the same will be promptly paid infull when due or performed in accordance with the terms of the extension orrenewal, whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise.  The obligations of the Guarantors to theHolders of Notes and to the Trustee pursuant to the Guarantee and the Indentureare expressly set forth in Article 10 of the Indenture and reference is herebymade to the Indenture for the precise terms of the Guarantee.

 

Capitalized terms used but not defined herein havethe meanings given to them in the Indenture.

 

 
|   | UBIQUITEL  INC.                            |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |                                       |
|   | By:                                        |   |
|   | Name:  James J. Volk                       |
|   | Title:   Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MANUEL RIOS, JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 112 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of August, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed September 28, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 20
- 00722
- CR KEPHREN THOMAS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 8

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MA20
- 20487
- J MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Evans Opinion by Justice Myers Kephren Thomas is attempt ing to appeal the trial court ’ s “failing to reduce

a ppellant’s bail” and “placing bond conditions on appellant that were not justified.” Generally, this C ourt has jurisdiction to consider appeals by criminal defendants only after a judgment of conviction. Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.

— Dal las 1998, no pet.) (a ppellate courts may consider appeals by criminal defendants only after conviction or entry of appealable order ); Rabbani v.
State , 494 S.W.3d 778, 780 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. ref ’d) . We do not have jurisdiction to he ar interlocutory appeals from pretrial orders regarding– 2

–

the denial of bond sought by motion

. Ragston v. State , 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has been charged with assault causing bodily injury. T he clerk’s record, filed on August 14, 2020, does not contain a written order signed by the trial court denying bond or imposing any restrictions

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a)(1) (notice of appeal must be filed after trial court enters appealable order); State v. Shaw , 4 S.W.3d 875, 878 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1999, no pet.) (docket sheet does not constitute a written order). But even assuming such an order existed, we lack jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders holding a defendant’s bond insufficient or de nying him bail. See Ragston , 424 S.W.3d at 52 (holding courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders regarding excessive bail or the denial of bail); see also Lenard v. State , No. 05

- 14

- 00767

- CR, 2014 WL 4536538, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dalla s Sept. 12, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding court lacked jurisdiction over interlocutory order holding defendant’s bond insufficient and raising bond).
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b) 200722 F

. U 05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTI CE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT KEPHREN THOMAS, Appellant No. 05

- 20

- 00722

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 8, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MA20

- 20487

- J. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Nowell and Evans participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.
Judgment entered this 28th day of September , 2020

.
#### Linda TAYLOR, Appellant, v. Gerald TAYLOR, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 15, 1965.

*897Val A. House, Jr., Scottsville, for appellant.

Frank R. Goad, Scottsville, for appellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

Linda Taylor appeals from that portion of a judgment which awards $30 a month for the support of her eight month old daughter and permits her former husband, the child’s father, to take the child with him one weekend each month. In seeking modification of the judgment she argues that the award is inadequate for the needs of the child and that it is not in the best interest of a child of such tender years to be separated from its mother for the length of time permitted in the judgment.

Under facts similar to those appearing in the instant case we held, in Robinson v. Robinson, Ky., 363 S.W.2d 111, that $10 a week was clearly insufficient and that an able-bodied father must pay the minimum amount necessary for the decent support of his children. While ordinarily the fixing of support for children is left to the Chancellor, it is our opinion that, under this record, the needs of this child require an award of at least $50 a month.

We also believe it is not in the best interest of the child to be separated from its mother as authorized by the Chancellor. We reach this determination because of the child’s extreme youth. At the present time visitation by the father should be limited to brief periods during daylight hours at a place convenient to the child’s mother.

To the extent indicated herein the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Allen Circuit Court with directions to enter a new judgment which is not inconsistent with this opinion.
#### Tom DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28853.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 13, 1957.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

The offense is the unlawful sale of wine in a dry area; the punishment, six months in jail and a fine of $500.

The record does not reflect that a notice of appeal was given and entered of record as required by Article 827, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

In the absence thereof, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1514 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1514

To limit United States assistance to Egypt unless Egypt is honoring its 
   commitments under the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2011

Ms. Berkley (for herself and Mr. Engel) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To limit United States assistance to Egypt unless Egypt is honoring its 
   commitments under the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE TO EGYPT.

    No funds made available for assistance to Egypt may be obligated or 
expended unless the President determines and certifies to Congress that 
Egypt is honoring its commitments under the 1979 peace treaty between 
Egypt and Israel.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2632

KIRSTEN M. NOAKES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LESLIE P. FORD; DOES 1 Through 3,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-96-619-R)

Submitted: March 17, 1998 Decided: March 31, 1998

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kirsten M. Noakes, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing her

action under the Federal Tort Claims Act under both Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. We modify the dismissal, however, to fall only under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and to

be without prejudice to Appellant's opportunity to exhaust her

administrative remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (1994); McNeil v.

United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). 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.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED