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

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58110-58111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24842]

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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts; Combined Arts Advisory Panel

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting 
of the Combined Arts Advisory Panel, Local Arts Agencies section 
(Access, Education and Heritage/Preservation categories), to the 
National Council on the Arts will be held from October 26-27, 2000 in 
Room 730 at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC, 20506. A portion of this meeting, from 10:30 a.m. To 12 
p.m. on October 27th, will be open to the public for policy discussion 
and guidelines review.
    The remaining portions of this meeting, from 9 a.m. To 5 p.m. on 
October 26th, and from 9-10:30 a.m.

[[Page 58111]]

and 12-3 p.m. on October 27th, are for the purpose of Panel review, 
discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for 
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 by grant applicants. In accordance with the 
determination of the Chairman of May 12, 2000, these sessions will be 
closed to the public pursuant to (c)(4)(6) and (9)(B) of section 552b 
of Title 5, United States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels that are open to the public, and, if time allows, may be 
permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion 
of the panel chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal 
employee in attendance.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please 
contract the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 20506, 202/682-5532, 
TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, 
National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506, or call 202/
682-5691.

    Dated: September 22, 2000.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 00-24842 Filed 9-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
```
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 the Interior

###### National Park Service 

# DATES:

                        The effective date of this Order shall be the date of publication in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# SUMMARY:

                        The Petroglyph National Monument Establishment Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-313, 104 Stat. 272, established Petroglyph National Monument on the outskirts of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Within the monument's authorized boundaries                               ( print page 57826)                            were certain lands owned by the State of New Mexico. On March 31, 2000, the Bureau of Land Management acquired those particular lands, in the name of the United States, in a land exchange with the State Land Office. On August 14, 2000, the Bureau of Land Management advised that it was transferring administrative jurisdiction on the said lands to the National Park Service.                     

The lands and/or interests acquired by the Bureau of Land Management, subject to this notice, are designated as Tract 101-05, within the boundaries of Petroglyph National Monument, consisting of 641.89 acres, more or less. 

Notice is hereby given that, as of the date of publication of this notice, administrative jurisdiction over those lands and/or interests in land is formally transferred from the Bureau of Land Management to the National Park Service. 

Maps and legal descriptions of these particular lands are available for inspection at Petroglyph National Monument Headquarters and the National Park Service, Land Resources Program Center, 2968 Rodeo Park Drive West, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. 

Dated: August 31, 2000. 

Karen Wade, 

Regional Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service.

[FR Doc. 00-24696 Filed 9-25-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
#### BRIGHAM v. STATE.

No. 24533.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 7, 1949.

None on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon an information charging the unlawful sale of whisky in Hunt County, a dry area, appellant was convicted and punishment assessed at thirty days in jail.

 The State was under the burden of establishing, either by proof or otherwise, that Hunt County was a dry area within the meaning of the Liquor Control Act, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666 — 1 et seq. The statement of facts, as well as the record as a whole, fails to reflect that the State discharged that burden.

The evidence is therefore insufficient to sustain the conviction. Hodges v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 209 S.W.2d 611.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
T he colon between Osloond & s middle and last names is not a typographica l 1 error; he uses the colon when he signs his name. The HONORABLE RICHARD H. BATTEY, Chief Judge, United State s 2 District Court for the District of South Dakota.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2869

___________ Raymond Earl Osloond, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Thomas E. Brady, Attorney at Law; * District of South Dakota. Honorable Warren G. Johnson, * Circuit Court Judge, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 6, 1998 Filed: November 9, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Raym ond Earl: Osloond appeals from the district court & s dismissal withou t 1 2 prejudice of his claims against his former attorney and the state judge who presided-2-

over his divorce proceeding. After caref ul review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT
12
 
 
 **SOUTHWESTERN
ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY CONSOLIDATED**
 **Computation
of Consolidated Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges**
 **(in
thousands except ratio data)**
 
 **Year Ended December 31,**
    
    **Twelve**
      **Months**
      **Ended****2000**
    
    **2001**
    
    **2002**
    
    **2003**
    
    **2004**
    
    **3/31/05****FIXED CHARGES**Interest on Long-term Debt
    
    $
    43,547
    
    $
    41,401
    
    $
    43,011
    
    $
    53,309
    
    $
    46,080
    
    $
    44,078Interest on Short-term Debt
    
    
    10,174
    
    
    9,680
    
    
    7,776
    
    
    6,545
    
    
    7,581
    
    
    7,741Distributions on Trust Preferred
Securities
    
    
    8,663
    
    
    8,663
    
    
    8,662
    
    
    4,331
    
    
    -
    
    
    -Estimated Interest Element in Lease
Rentals
    
    
    467
    
    
    759
    
    
    1,080
    
    
    2,500
    
    
    3,700
    
    
    3,700**Total Fixed
      Charges**
    
    $
    62,851
    
    $
    60,503
    
    $
    60,529
    
    $
    66,685
    
    $
    57,361
    
    $
    55,519**EARNINGS**Income Before Cumulative Effect of
      Accounting Changes
    
    $
    72,672
    
    $
    89,367
    
    $
    82,992
    
    $
    89,624
    
    $
    89,457
    
    $
    96,641Plus Federal Income Taxes
    
    
    12,058
    
    
    70,121
    
    
    37,439
    
    
    37,315
    
    
    21,305
    
    
    24,597Plus State Income Taxes
    
    
    2,538
    
    
    8,385
    
    
    5,687
    
    
    8,140
    
    
    4,966
    
    
    5,416Plus Provision for
      Deferred Income Taxes
    
    
    14,653
    
    
    (31,396
    )
    
    (3,134
    )
    
    9,942
    
    
    12,782
    
    
    13,651Plus Deferred Investment
      Tax Credits
    
    
    (4,482
    )
    
    (4,453
    )
    
    (4,524
    )
    
    (4,325
    )
    
    (4,326
    )
    
    (4,317
    )Plus Fixed Charges (as above)
    
    
    62,851
    
    
    60,503
    
    
    60,529
    
    
    66,685
    
    
    57,361
    
    
    55,519**Total
      Earnings**
    
    $
    160,290
    
    $
    192,527
    
    $
    178,989
    
    $
    207,381
    
    $
    181,545
    
    $
    191,507**Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges**
    
    
    2.55
    
    
    3.18
    
    
    2.95
    
    
    3.10
    
    
    3.16
    
    
    3.44
 
 Certain
amounts have been reclassified between interest on short-term and long-term debt
compared to periods prior to January 1, 2002.  This reclassification had no
effect on the ratio.
 
 Certain
amounts have been reclassified between Distributions on Trust preferred
Securities and Interest on Long-term Debt due to the implementation of FIN 46R
"Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities" effective March 31, 2004 on a
prospective basis.  This reclassification had no effect on this
ratio.
#### Swannie COOMER, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 16, 1952.

Elmer C. Roberts, Campion, for movant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Wolfe Circuit Court. Judgment of conviction for selling whiskey. $60 fine and 30 days in jail. The record and questions raised by brief have been carefully considered.

Judgment affirmed.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-51115

Conference Calendar

 

JOHN LEE COOK, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-00-CV-28

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

April 10, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Lee Cook, Sr., former Texas prisoner 672488, argues

that the district court erred in dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the

Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (“Board”) illegally extended

his sentence by denying him parole or revoking his parole based

on void convictions, evidence of substance abuse relied upon in

prior proceedings, or unauthenticated evidence of substance

abuse. Cook is seeking only monetary compensation from the

Board. 
No. 00-51115

-2-

Cook has not challenged the district court’s dismissal of

his complaint against the Board based on Eleventh Amendment

immunity. Thus, he has abandoned the sole ground for appeal. 

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Because Cook has failed to raise an issue of arguable merit,

the appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Cook’s request for injunctive relief is DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6705

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BILLY RAY FAIRLEY, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-02-229; CA-04-28-1)

Submitted: November 14, 2005 Decided: December 6, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Ray Fairley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Billy Ray Fairley, Sr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s denial of Fairley’s

motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) petition. The order is

not appealable 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 absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

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

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369

F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir. 2004); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Fairley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 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. 4895 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4895

     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work boots for men.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2012

 Mr. Carnahan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work boots for men.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN WORK BOOTS FOR MEN.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.64.01        Work footwear for   Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          men with outer                                                    12/31/2014
                          soles of rubber,
                          plastics, leather
                          or composition
                          leather and
                          uppers of
                          leather,
                          incorporating a
                          protective toe-
                          cap of materials
                          other than metal,
                          covering the
                          ankle to a height
                          greater than
                          15.24 cm (6
                          inches) (provided
                          for in subheading
                          6403.91.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4772 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Penbotec 400SC. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. NUNES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Penbotec 400SC. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PENBOTEC 400SC. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Penbotec 400SC (CAS No. 

53112–28–0), 4,6-dimethyl-N-phenyl-2- 

pyrimidinamine (provided 

for in subheading 

3808.92.15) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4772 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|                                                                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                                       
|View History:                                                                                              
|                                                                                                           
|Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                           
|Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 72    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 59     | 56     | 60     | 37     | 55     | 38     | 16     | 14     | 20     | 13    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4      | 197    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### YOUNG et al. v. ROBINETTE et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 27, 1951.

Kenneth A. Howe, Pikeville, for appellants.

Jean L. Auxier, Pikeville, for appellees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

This action was brought for a declaration of rights, to secure the construction of a will, and to authorize the conveyance of a fee simple title to real estate. The Chancellor approved the sale, but determined that the proceeds must be held in trust. Appellants on this appeal object only to the latter portion of the judgment.

Under the will of Tibb Goff an interest in the property was devised in trust, the income therefrom to be paid to the testator’s wife for life. At her death the property was to go to other persons who appear here as appellants. The trustee, the wife, and the remaindermen all joined in asking that a sale of the property be approved.

In spite of the fact that the will prohibited the sale of the real estate by the trustee or the wife, we think the Chancellor properly construed it as authorizing a sale with the consent of all interested parties, and this matter is not in issue.

It is appellants’ contention that the trust has become a dry or passive one, and that under such circumstances, the Court should decree a dissolution of the trust and the proceeds of the sale should not be subject thereto. Appellants are clearly mistaken when they argue that the trust has become inactive simply because the real estate had not heretofore produced income and because all of the interested parties are agreeable to having it terminated. A dry trust is one wherein the objects and purposes have been accomplished, and the trustee has no duties to perform. See Carpenter v. Carpenter’s Trustee, 119 Ky. 582, 84 S.W. 737, 68 L.R.A. 637.

On the other hand, as stated in 54 Am. Jur., Trusts, Section 75: “ * * * a trust ordinarily cannot be terminated by the consent, contract, conveyance, or transfer of a beneficiary unless the object of the trust has been attained, or at least practically accomplished, and termination of a trust is not justified merely because of the judgment of beneficiaries that a testator’s intention will be better achieved some other way.”

This Court has in several cases recognized that a court of equity may not terminate a trust, even when the 'interested parties are in agreement, unless the design and the object of the trust has been accomplished. See Miller’s Executors v. Miller’s Heirs and Creditors, 172 Ky. 519, 189 *92S.W. 417; Brown v. Owsley, Trustee, et al., 198 Ky. 344, 248 S.W. 889; Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Williams et al., 268 Ky. 671, 105 S.W.2d 814; and New York Life Ins. Co. v. Conrad et al., 269 Ky. 359, 107 S.W.2d 248.

In the present case it was the intention of the testator that his wife should be paid income from this property during her lifetime. She apparently wishes to receive from the sale proceeds the present value of that right. This is contrary to the trustor’s design, and we must enforce the trust to the extent it is possible to do so. The Chancellor properly decided this question.

The judgment is affirmed.