alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 62341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26691]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-35-000]


Norteno Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Compliance Filing

October 12, 2000.
    Take notice that on Octobere 10, 2000, Norteno Pipeline Company 
(Norteno), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following pro forma tariff sheet:

Pro Forma Sheet No. 242

    Norteno states that this pro forma tariff sheet reflects the 
changes to its tariff that are required to comply with the Commission's 
Order Nos. 637, 637-A and 637-B. Norteno has made changes to its 
General Terms and Conditions to provide for segmentation of capacity. 
As further explained in the filing, Norteno believes its current tariff 
provisions governing scheduling equality and flexible point rights 
comply with the requirements of Order No. 637. Norteno requests waiver 
of the requirements relating to alternate point allocations, 
operational flow orders, imbalance services and penalties on the 
grounds that they are either not operationally feasible for Norteno or 
are unnecessary in order to comply with Order No. 637.
    Norteno states that copies of this filing have been served on 
Norteno's jurisdictional customers and public bodies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26691 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Filed 11/19/08 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2008 ND 198

In the Matter of LeRoy John Hanson

Kelly A. Dillon, Assistant 

State’s Attorney for Ward 

County, North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

Leroy John Hanson, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20080098

Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable William W. McLees, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Per Curiam.

Kelly A. Dillon, Assistant State’s Attorney, P.O Box 5005, Minot, N.D. 58702-5005, for petitioner and appellee; on brief.

Ryan D. Sandberg, P.O. Box 1000, Minot, N.D. 58702-1000, for respondent and appellant; on brief.

Matter of Hanson

No. 20080098

Per Curiam.

[¶1]LeRoy John Hanson appeals the district court’s order finding him a sexually dangerous individual and committing him to the care, custody, and control of the Executive Director of the Department of Human Services.  Hanson  argues the district court erred in concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that Hanson has a congenital or acquired condition that is manifested by a sexual disorder, a personality disorder, or other mental disorder or dysfunction.  Hanson also argues the district court erred in concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that he is likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct.

[¶2]In Matter of R.A.S., 2008 ND 185,   9, we held the district court must make detailed findings that (1) the individual has engaged in sexually predatory conduct; (2) the individual has a congenital or acquired condition that is manifested by a sexual disorder, personality disorder, or other mental disorder or dysfunction; (3) the condition makes the individual likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct which constitute a danger to the physical or mental health or safety of others; and (4) there is proof the individual has serious difficulty controlling his behavior.  The district court did not make specific findings on the statutory elements and the due process consideration required by Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413 (2002).  These detailed findings are necessary to enable us to fulfill our appellate function.  See Matter of Vantreece, 2008 ND 197.  Thus, under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b) and Matter of R.A.S., 2008 ND 185, we reverse and remand for detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the court’s decision.

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner
QUENTIN B. ALLEN

,

Appellant,

v.

CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3322

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 1, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Kevin J. Carroll , Judge

.

Appellant

, pro se

.

Elizabeth T. Frau of Ronald R. Wolfe & Assoc.

, P.L., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIA M.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J.

, THOMAS

, and RAY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2885 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily exclude capital 

gain from gross income. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2013 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily 

exclude capital gain from gross income. 

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 ‘‘Growing Jobs Through 

5 Capital Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TWO-YEAR CAPITAL GAINS TAX RELIEF. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part I of subchapter P of chapter 

8 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to treat9 ment of capital gains) is amended by adding at the end 

10 the following new section: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2885 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 1203. TWO-YEAR EXCLUSION OF GAIN FROM SALE OF 

2 CAPITAL ASSETS. 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Gross income shall not include 

4 gain from the sale or exchange of an asset which is a cap5 ital asset in the hands of the taxpayer. 

6 ‘‘(b) TERMINATION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply 

7 to any sale or exchange later than 2 years after the date 

8 of the enactment of this section.’’. 

9 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—Part I of subchapter 

10 P of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

11 amended by adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 1203. Two-year exclusion of gain from sale of capital assets.’’. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply to sales or exchanges after the date 

14 of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after 

15 such date. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 99.2

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Superior Uniform Group, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew D. Demott, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 ExchangeAct 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/ ANDREW D.DEMOTT, JR.                          |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                   |   |
| **Andrew D. Demott, Jr. Chief Financial Officer** |   |
| May 13, 2003                                      |   |
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40753 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus EDUARDO MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-02-CR-65-1

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Eduardo Marquez (“Marquez”) pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). He argues that the district court plainly erred by assigning an initial offense level of 28 for possession of 1.2 kilograms of cocaine and that the drug type and quantity provisions of § 841(a) and (b) are unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000).No. 02-40753 -2- Though the district court may have failed to properly select the initial offense level, this court’s rule for correcting sentencing range errors is clear: even where clear error exists, the error will not be corrected as plain error if the original sentence could be imposed on remand. United States v. Leonard , 157 F.3d 343, 346 (5th Cir. 1998). As Marquez concedes, his second argument is foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 532 U.S. 1045 (2001). In the absence of any convincing argument, the sentence imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                  [VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & CO., LLP LETTERHEAD]


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


Board of Directors and Shareholders
VIB Corp
El Centro, California


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting 
part of The Registration Statement of VIB Corp on Form S-8, registration number 
333-50701, of our report dated January 13, 1999, on our audit of the 
consolidated balance sheets of VIB Corp as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and 
the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' 
equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 
31, 1998, which report is incorporated by reference in the 1998 Annual Report 
on Form 10-K.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus 
constituting part of The Registration Statement of VIB Corp on Form S-4, 
registration number 333-43021, of our report dated January 13, 1999, on our 
audit of the consolidated balance sheets of VIB Corp as of December 31, 1998 
and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in 
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period 
ended December 31, 1998, which report is incorporated by reference in the 1998 
Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                      /s/ Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP


March 16, 1999
Laguna Hills, California
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a,

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT

Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00571-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00572-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00573-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00575-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00576-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00579-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00580-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00583-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00584-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00585-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Please take notice that attorney Nathan K. Cummings of the law firm Etheridge Law 

Group, PLLC appears as counsel of record for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos 

Licensing and Development. Mr. Cummings hereby requests that all notices required to be given 

and all papers required to be served in the above-entitled and numbered cause be served upon him.

Dated: October 14, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Nathan K. Cummings

James L. Etheridge 

Texas Bar No. 24059147 

Ryan S. Loveless 

Texas Bar No. 24036997 

Brett A. Mangrum 

Texas Bar No. 24065671 

Travis L. Richins 

Texas Bar No. 24061296 

Jeffrey Huang

Brian M. Koide

Nathan K. Cummings

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC 

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324 

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 60 Filed 10/14/21 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL Page 2

Southlake, TX 76092 

Tel.: (817) 470-7249 

Fax: (817) 887-5950 

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Jhuang@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Brian@EtheridgeLaw.com

Nathan@EtheridgeLaw.com

Mark D. Siegmund

State Bar No. 24117055

mark@waltfairpllc.com

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC.

1508 North Valley Mills Drive 

Waco, Texas 76710

Telephone: (254) 772-6400

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered electronically 

via the U.S. District Court CM/ECF Document Filing System to all counsel of record on October 

14, 2021.

/s/ Nathan K. Cummings

Nathan K. Cummings

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 60 Filed 10/14/21 Page 2 of 2
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 00-30583

Summary Calendar

JODITH SAVOIE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SEACRAFT SHIPYARD,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(99-CV-1872)

December 29, 2000

Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jodith Savoie, a white female, was employed by Seacraft

Shipyard for approximately ten months ending April 3, 1998. Savoie

retained an attorney and on September 19, 1998, filed a charge of

discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC”) against Seacraft asserting that she was sexually harassed,
2

discriminated against, and discharged because of her gender. On

October 25, 1998, the EEOC issued its dismissal and notice of

rights which specifically provided that “If you decide to sue, you

must sue within 98 days from your receipt of this notice.” Savoie

did not file timely suit after receipt of the right to sue notice.

Instead, on January 19, 1999, Savoie filed a duplicate identical

charge of discrimination against Seacraft reiterating her assertion

that she was sexually harassed, discriminated against, and

discharged because of her gender. Savoie declined to participate

in an EEOC mediation of her claims and on July 30, 1999, the EEOC

issued a second dismissal and notice of right which was mailed to

Savoie. Savoie did not file her complaint against Seacraft until

October 12, 1999, almost one year after the EEOC’s issuance of its

first dismissal and notice of rights. Seacraft moved for summary

judgment which the district court granted. Savoie timely appeals.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the

record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For

the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum ruling

filed under date of April 5, 2000, we affirm the Final Judgment

entered in favor of Seacraft under date of April 25, 2000.

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTIONS

Appellate case name: Jarvis Marquis Tillman v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-19-00098-CR & 01-19-00099-CR

Trial court case number: 1604096 & 1580017

Trial court: 185th District Court of Harris County

On January 29, 2019, appellant, Jarvis Marquis Tillman, filed a combined notice of 

appeal from the January 22, 2019 judgments of conviction after he pleaded guilty to the 

third-degree felony offense of harassment of a public servant, in trial court cause number 

1604096, and to the state-jail felony offense of theft <$2,500, but with two or more prior 

convictions, in trial court cause number 1580017, and the trial court assessed his 

punishment at two years’ confinement in each case, to be served concurrently with each 

other. The Clerk of this Court’s April 23, 2019 letter notified appellant’s appointed 

counsel, Richard K. Oliver, that his extensions were granted to file his briefs until July 17, 

2019, with no further extensions, in both the 01-19-00098-CR and 01-19-00099-CR cases.

However, on June 11 and 13, 2019, the Clerk of this Court received two lettermotions from the pro se appellant seeking to withdraw both appeals, but they were not 

signed by counsel. The Clerk of this Court is directed to file appellant’s letters as pro se 

letter-motions to dismiss. Under Rule 42.2(a), any voluntary motion to dismiss in a 

criminal appeal must contain both the signature of appellant’s counsel and the appellant, 

and it must be filed in duplicate with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES appellant’s pro se letter-motions to dismiss these

appeals without prejudice to refiling by appellant’s counsel, Richard K. Oliver, because 

they were neither signed by counsel nor filed in duplicate. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

This Court will consider compliant motionsto dismiss filed by appellant’s counsel, Richard 

K. Oliver, who is directed to contact the appellant regarding his letter-motions to dismiss.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes_____

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __June 25, 2019___
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2013-NM-135-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### Petticrew, Appellant, *v.*Webster, Supt. of Workhouse of City of Dayton, Appellee.

(No. 27767

Decided November 22, 1939.)

*Mr. A. K. Meek,*for appellant.

*Mr. Jerome A. Nevius,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. Ben J. Goldman, Mr. Herbert S. Beane,*city attorney, and *Mr. Joseph P. Duffy,*for appellee.

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

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, J J., concur.
Order filed, May 16, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00024-CV

____________

MOHAMMED KHAN AND TASNEEM KHAN, Appellant

V.

SAFECO SURPLUS LINES, CRAWFORD & COMPANY AND GARY 

WHIGHTSIL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 04-DCV-135176

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 09, 2013. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. Appellant has been found indigent and entitled to proceed without 

payment of costs. Appellant has provided this court with evidence the record has 

been requested. 
The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The 

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Elizabeth Wittu, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
#### Mary Di Maggio, as Administratrix, Plaintiff, *v.*Leon D. Dematteis *&*Son, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

August 30, 1957.

*1026*Bothbard, McAuley <& Schulman*for plaintiff.

*G. Burchard Smith, County Attorney,*for County of Nassau, defendant.

Mario Pittoni, J.

The defendant, County of Nassau, moves to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that the notice of claim required by law was not served upon the officials designated by law within the required time.

The plaintiff’s intestate was injured on July 23, 1956. A notice of claim was served October 22, 1956, by registered mail upon the “ Chairman, Board of Supervisors, County of Nassau, Franklin Avenue, Mineóla, New York.”

The county contends that the plaintiff failed to serve one of the officials designated in subdivision 3 of section 228 of the Civil Practice Act, namely, the County Attorney; and also failed to comply with section 11-4.0 of the Nassau County Administrative Code (L. 1939, ch. 272, as amd.). This provides for service of all process and papers for the commencement of an action against the county upon the County Executive or the County Attorney.

It is not disputed that the County Executive and the chairman of the board of supervisors are one and the same person. Therefore, there was compliance with section 11-4.0 of the Administrative Code since only one of the two officials specified therein had to be served.

To the extent that subdivision 3 of section 228 of the Civil Practice Act is in conflict with the provisions of the Administrative Code the latter prevails, and the code is the only one that need be complied with in Nassau County. This is based on the canon of statutory construction that where a special statute is in conflict with a general one the special statute controls. *(Strauch*v. *Town of Oyster Bay,*263 App. Div. 833; see, also, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 1, Statutes, § 397.)

Motion denied.

Settle order on notice.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


         In connection with the quarterly report of Tecumseh Products Company
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
10-Q"), I, Todd W. Herrick, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

         (2)      The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.



Dated:   November 13, 2003            BY:   /s/  TODD W. HERRICK
         ---------------------------     ----------------------------------
                                         Todd W. Herrick
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 86 Filed 06/21/22 Page 1 of 1