alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 209 (Friday, October 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27620]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PL98-1-001]


Public Access to Information and Electronic Filing; Notice of 
Electronic Filing Demonstrations

October 19, 2000.
    Take notice that the Commission Staff (Staff) will conduct 
demonstrations for filing comments electronically (excluding comments 
on rulemakings).
    The electronic filing demonstrations will be held following the 
Commission meetings on October 25, 2000 and November 8, 2000.
    The demonstration on October 25, 2000 will be held in Hearing Room 
1 and the demonstration on November 8 will be held in the Commission 
Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The electronic filing demonstrations are open to all interested 
persons.
    The Capitol Connection will offer the electronic filing 
demonstration on November 8, 2000, as a special FERC meeting, live over 
the Internet as well as via telephone and satellite. For a reasonable 
fee, you can receive the demonstration in your office, at home or 
anywhere in the world. To find out more about The Capitol Connection's 
live Internet, phone bridge or satellite coverage, contact David 
Reininger or Julia Morelli at (703) 993-3100 or visit Capital 
Connection's website at www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu). The Capitol 
Connection also offers FERC Open Meetings through its Washington, DC 
area television service.

David Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27620 Filed 10-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 10.20

                       AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO LETTER AGREEMENT
                       -----------------------------------

     This  Amendment  No.  2  to Letter Agreement (the Amendment) is dated as of
December  1, 2005 and is made by and between Mr. Colin Dyer (Mr. Dyer) and Jones
Lang  LaSalle  Incorporated  (Jones  Lang  LaSalle).

                                    RECITALS
                                    --------

     Mr.  Dyer  and Jones Lang LaSalle have previously entered into that certain
letter  agreement  (the  Letter  Agreement)  dated  July 16, 2004, as amended on
August 30, 2004, regarding the employment of Mr. Dyer as the President and Chief
Executive  Officer  of  Jones  Lang  LaSalle.  Based  on their actual experience
regarding  the  nature  and location of Mr. Dyer's principal place of employment
since  August  30, 2004, Mr. Dyer and Jones Lang LaSalle have mutually agreed to
amend  the  Letter  Agreement  as  set  forth  below.

                                    AGREEMENT
                                    ---------

     Mr.  Dyer  and Jones Lang LaSalle hereby agree that the Letter Agreement is
amended  by  deleting in its entirety the first sentence in the Section entitled
"PLACE  OF  EMPLOYMENT  AND  COMMENCEMENT  DATE"  and inserting in its place the
following  sentence:

"Your  principal  place  of employment shall be in Chicago, Illinois, subject to
business travel consistent with the needs and demands of the Company."

As  amended  by  this  Amendment,  the  Letter  Agreement is hereby ratified and
confirmed  in  its entirety.  The above amendment shall be deemed to have effect
as of August 30, 2004 for the reason stated in the Recitals.

     IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Amendment as
of  the  date  first  written  above.


                              /s/  Colin Dyer
                              ---------------
                              Colin Dyer

                              JONES LANG LASALLE INCORPORATED

                              By:

                              /s/  Nazneen Razi
                              -----------------
                              Nazneen  Razi
                              Chief Human Resources Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 22, 2022

No. 04-22-00295-CR

Joshua CASAREZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR4739

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After we granted Appellant’s first motion for extension of time, Appellant’s brief was 

due on November 21, 2022. On the due date, Appellant filed a motion for a thirty-day extension 

of time to file the brief.

Appellant’s motion is granted. Appellant’s brief is due on December 21, 2022. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.6(d).

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of November, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
[No. 35276.

*En Banc.*

April 14, 1960.]

#### The Apartment Operators Association of Seattle, Inc., *et al., Respondents,*v. William S. Schumacher *et al., Appellants,*Central Building Company *et al., Intervenors and Respondents.**1*

*The Attorney General*and *John W. Riley, Deputy,*for appellants.

*Merges & Brain*and *Eugene D. Zelensky,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 351 P. (2d) 124.

Per Curiam.

— The members of the state tax commission appeal from a declaratory judgment enjoining the enforcement of Laws of 1959, Ex. Ses., chapter 5, § 4, p. 1667, providing for the collection of a tax on rents which exceed three hundred dollars per month. The statute, so far as material, is as follows:

> *47“Upon every person engaging within this state in the business of: . . . (5) the renting or leasing of real property; as to such persons, the amount of tax on such business shall be equal to the gross income of the business multiplied by the rate of one-quarter of one percent.”

Laws of 1959, Ex. Ses., chapter 5, § 7, p. 1669, exempts from the tax gross rental income of under three hundred dollars per month.

With commendable candor and admirable simplicity, the attorney general, in his brief, states the single issue presented in the following words:

> “It is appellant’s belief that the foregoing assignments of error are individually and collectively hinged to a single question of law:

> *“Is the tax in question an excise tax or a property tax?”*

The question is foreclosed by prior decisions of this court. The attorney general, with the same commendable forthrightness and candor, states in the printed brief:

> “We recognize that this court has held that ‘income’ is ‘property.’ *Jensen v. Henneford,*185 Wash. 209 [53 P. (2d) 607]; *(cf. Petroleum Navigation Co. v. Henneford,*185 Wash. 495 [55 P. (2d) 1056]; *Power, Inc. v. Huntley,*39 Wn. (2d) 191 [235 P. (2d) 173]; *Aberdeen Savings and Loan Ass’n v. Chase,*157 Wash. 351 [289 Pac. 536, 290 Pac. 697]; and *Culliton v. Chase,*174 Wash. 363 [25 P. (2d) 81].)”

Under those decisions, a tax on rental income is a tax on property, and not an excise tax. Furthermore, a tax upon rents from real estate is a tax upon the real estate itself, and is, thus, a second tax upon real estate. There is no tax levied by the act upon unrented real estate. For such reasons (the exclusion of gross income of under three hundred dollars and the second tax upon rental realty), the instant tax lacks the uniformity required by the fourteenth amendment to the state constitution. The argument is again pressed upon us that these cases were wrongly decided. The court is unwilling, however, to recede from the position announced in its repeated decisions.

Among other things, the attorney general urges that *48the result should now be different because the state is confronted with a financial crisis. If so, the constitution maybe amended by vote of the people. Such a constitutional amendment was rejected by popular vote in 1934.

The judgment is affirmed.

September 13, 1960. Petition for rehearing denied.
### Regul atory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: 

### -AD

{(you mak e changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals updat e accordingly. (f 

### they do not , click (o r Tab) into and then out of the changed ce11. Esti mated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, (e.g., In spection, propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

### Do not in clude oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Regi stered and close-up) our) Produ cts Inspect ion ('> t(

**~** ' 751.5 $0 

# - 1 l 0 !( {,i) _I 

### o.nu O.lit r, fit 

## o.on o Of { 1\(1 _., 

### u.Oo 

# ' 0.1)11 I 

# " 0.00 

# " 0 (II I ... o.!)o 0 f•t , t)JI{)



# . ()(I( lJ ')t,

'J ., ' lltf 

### r. (rl' -, r, .I \.'.l)U

**~** I• ')r, ' t,_,. ' ft!l (, (o;' ) {I f. I 

### > trt•O t II I (I fi(J 

### ,,

t U.tJ:J ,)1 .1.1 n (HI '' (JC· 0 f:l I I 'l() ( ,)i_l ,) trn f>.OO
i ( ,( J 1.!.00 '> 

### o.ou .) o.GO ) () (l,) ...., () (l(l 

### \ ;) {)('

**~** 

### u l)(J r• ) 

### o .• Jo The known number of products in compliance: 

### 0 Total Costs of comp l iance for 

### U.S. fleet: $63,878 Costs covered under warranty 

### (if known) $
On-Conditi o n Costs: • Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., In spection, (include access, (@$85/hour)

replacement) testing , and close

Uj)) *Rep lac ement 0.0 

### -... o no $0 ') !l'l \ (I (10

**~!** 1,1){1

... /) 1](1 t I I 1 0 \ (l 

### ,,,

### S p ecial considerations for Eco nomic Analysis (Use thisfield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed o r might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty cos t s): 

### *Replacement of the skin panel is covered under Boeing waranty. Exe cutive Order 12866 : Cou l d the AD be cons ide r ed a "s ign ificant regu latory



# act **"?~** YES* 

# D

**O~** 

### *Exp lanation : 

### DOT Regulatory Polici es and Procedures : I s the AD s ignificant?

- , YES* 

# D NO 

# IZI *Exp lanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act : W ill the A D have a signi fi cant eco n om ic impact on a substantial number of sma ll entities? Explain for
e ither a Yes or No answer. - ' YES 

# D NO 

# IZI Exp la nation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appro priate to include specific requirements for airc raft o perated in Alaska wher e aviation might be the only mode oftransportation?

- , YES* 

# D NOIZ! *Explanation:
#### SCHILKE REALTY ASSOCIATES *v.*JOYCE ANN RAK ET AL.

*Frank C. White, Jr.,*in support of the petition.

Decided June 17, 1998

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 17879) is denied.
# United Stat es Court of Appeals For the First C ircuit

No. 02-2688

IRENE CRUZ-VARGAS, ELI ROGELIO FIGUEROA-CRUZ AND LUIS ROGELIO FIGUEROA-CRUZ, Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee, R.J.R. NABISCO, INC., NABISCO GROUP HOLDINGS, Defendants.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court, issued on October 28, 2003, should be amended as follows: 1. p9, lines 12-13: Delete "prevalence of the habit," insert in its place "difficulty of abandoning the habit" 2. p11, line 7: After citation, insert new sen tence , including moving current footnote 7 as indicated: This rule is particularly applicable to the "testimonyof an expert witness . . . where the testimonybears on technical questions . . . beyond the competence of lay determination." QuintanaRuiz , 303 F.3d at 76-77 (quoting Webster v. Offshore Food Serv., Inc. , 434 F.2d 1191, 1193 (5th Cir. 1970)(internal citation omitted)(ellipses in original). This is suc h a case. The "common knowledge" defense is assessed objectively [ move current fn 7 here ], and, despite the nomenclature, it is a technical question involving methods, financing, and sources of research beyond thecompetence of lay determination, at least when

pertaining to history forty or fifty years removed from the time of trial. 3. p11, line 7: begin a new paragraph with the sentence "Martinez' research..."
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6871

DEANDRE JOHNSON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. CHADWICK DOTSON , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Raymond A. Jackson , Senior District Judge. ( 2:21

- cv - 00511

- RAJ

- LRL )

Submitted : May 28, 2024 Decided: July 9, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Deandre Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6871 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/09/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Deandre Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s final order and judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson 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 this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6871 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/09/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5512 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5512

To amend title 28, United States Code, to realign divisions within two 
                          judicial districts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

Mr. Thompson of Mississippi (for himself, Mr. Harper, Mrs. Emerson, and 
Mr. Nunnelee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 28, United States Code, to realign divisions within two 
                          judicial districts.

    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 ``Divisional Realignment Act of 
2012''.

SEC. 2. REALIGNMENT WITHIN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.

    Section 105(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Iron,'' and ``Saint 
        Genevieve,''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3)--
                    (A) by inserting ``Iron,'' after ``Dunklin,''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``Saint Genevieve,'' after 
                ``Ripley,''.

SEC. 3. REALIGNMENT WITHIN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI.

    Section 104(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
    ``(a) The northern district comprises three divisions.
            ``(1) The Aberdeen Division comprises the counties of 
        Alcorn, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Clay, Itawamba, Lee, Lowndes, 
        Monroe, Oktibbeha, Prentiss, Tishomingo, Webster, and Winston.
            ``Court for the Aberdeen Division shall be held at 
        Aberdeen, Ackerman, and Corinth.
            ``(2) The Oxford Division comprises the counties of Benton, 
        Calhoun, DeSoto, Lafayette, Marshall, Panola, Pontotoc, 
        Quitman, Tallahatchie, Tate, Tippah, Tunica, Union, and 
        Yalobusha.
            ``Court for the Oxford Division shall be held at Oxford.
            ``(3) The Greenville Division comprises the counties of 
        Attala, Bolivar, Carroll, Coahoma, Grenada, Humphreys, Leflore, 
        Montgomery, Sunflower, and Washington.
            ``Court for the Greenville Division shall be held at 
        Clarksdale, Cleveland, and Greenville.''.
                                 <all>
```
June 8, 2010

Arkema-EPA Meeting Summary

Representatives from Arkema met with EPA staff to discuss concerns about the proposed SNAP 

rule on HFO-1234yf, as well as its connection to the Significant New Use Rule under TSCA. 

Details of the meeting were claimed as confidential business information (CBI). 

Attachments:

- Meeting participants (Non-EPA)

- Article from Chemical Week, May 24, 2010 (copyrighted material)

- Comments from the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers 

- Article from Automotive Engineering International, 30 September, 2020 (copyrighted 

material)
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

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [OR-030-01-1020-XX: GP1-0011]

# AGENCY:

Vale District, Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Meeting of John Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council (RAC): Pendleton, Oregon, November 27-28, 2000. 

# SUMMARY:

On November 27, 2000 at 10 a.m. there will be a meeting of the John Day/Snake RAC at the Red Lion Hotel, 304 Southeast Nye Avenue in Pendleton, Oregon. The meeting is open to the public. Public comments will be received at 10 a.m. on November 28, 2000. The following topics will be discussed by the council: Program of work, Hells Canyon Subgroup Charter review, RAC membership review, Schedule of Proposed Actions, Blue Mountain Demo Area Project, Social Economic Map update; OHV followup; A 15 minute round table for general issues.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandy L. Guches, Bureau of Land Management, Vale District Office, 100 Oregon Street, Vale, Oregon 97918, Telephone (541) 473-3144.

Sandy L. Guches,

Acting District Manager.

[FR Doc. 00-27466  Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-33-M
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS


Richard M. Deneau, President and Chief Executive Officer and Darrin J. Campbell,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Anchor Glass Container
Corporation, hereby certify that:

         1. The annual report of the registrant on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 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 annual report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
registrant as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the annual report.


Date: March 18, 2004



/s/ Richard M. Deneau
----------------------------------------------
Name: Richard M. Deneau
Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Darrin J. Campbell
------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Darrin J. Campbell
Title:  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
and related prospectuses (Forms S-3 No. 333-48272 (amendment #1), No. 333-48486,
No. 333-50208 and No. 333-53694 (amendment #1)) of Terayon Communication
Systems, Inc., (Form S-8 No. 333-99039) pertaining to the 1998 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan and the 1998 Non-Employee Directors' Plan as amended (Form S-8 No.
333-85354) pertaining to the 1997 Equity Incentive Plan, (Forms S-8 No.
333-93779 and No. 333-53788) pertaining to the 1999 Non-Officer Equity Incentive
Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-66139) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan, the 1997
Equity Incentive Plan, the 1998 Non- Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan, the
1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Non-Plan Option Grants, (Forms S-8 No.
333-44770, No. 333-47154 and No. 333-61050) pertaining to the 1999 Non-Officer
Equity Incentive Plan and the 1997 Equity Incentive Plan, (Form S-8 No.
333-48488) pertaining to the MainSail Networks, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan, and
(Form S-8 No. 333-53778) pertaining to the 2000 TrueChat, Inc. Equity Incentive
Plan of our report dated January 24, 2003, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.



                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


San Jose, California
March 26, 2003
##### 



Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of CLP Holdings Limited (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew
Brandler, Group Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.

Date: June 20, 2003

|    |                                                                                          
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: | /s/ Andrew Brandler
    Andrew Brandler
Group Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer



|* |  | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
|- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------