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

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6211-6212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2808]

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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1311-DR]

Georgia; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY:  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Georgia, (FEMA-1311-DR), dated

[[Page 6212]]

January 28, 2000, and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  February 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3772.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following areas among 
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of January 28, 2000:

Banks, Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Chattooga, Cherokee, Cobb, Dawson, 
DeKalb, Douglas, Elbert, Fannin, Floyd, Forsyth, Franklin, Fulton, 
Gilmer, Gordon, Gwinnett, Habersham, Hall, Hart, Lumpkin, Newton, 
Oconee, Paulding, Pickens, Rabun, Rockdale, Stephens, Union, Walker, 
White, and Wilkes for utilities (Category F) under the Public 
Assistance program (already designated for debris removal (Category 
A) and emergency protective measures, (Category B), including direct 
Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 00-2808 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND THE BALANCE SHEET, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             343
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      287
<ALLOWANCES>                                        23
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   689
<PP&E>                                           1,045
<DEPRECIATION>                                     474
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,537
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,300
<OTHER-SE>                                     (20,083)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,260
<SALES>                                             49
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    49
<CGS>                                               25
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (8)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  71
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,642)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,642)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.43)
        


</TABLE>
#### Durbin, Appellant, *v.*The Humphrey Co., Appellee.

(No. 28031

Decided July 3, 1940.)

*179*Messrs. Harrison & Marshman,*for appellant.

*Messrs. McKeehan, Merrick, Arter & Stewart*and *Mr. Thomas V. Koykka,*for appellee.

By the Court.

The granting of a motion for new trial for failure hy prospective jurors to make disclosures upon facts such as heretofore related may have been erroneous hut it did not amount to an abuse of discretion. The granting of a motion for new trial rests in the sound discretion of the trial court (2 Ohio Jurisprudence, 728, Section 651) and does not constitute a final order unless it clearly appears that the trial court has abused its discretion in granting such motion. *Hoffman*v. *Knollman,*135 Ohio St., 170, 20 N. E. (2d), 221.

No such abuse of discretion appearing in this case, the action of the trial court in granting the motion for new trial did not constitute a final order, and therefore the appeal hy plaintiff to the Court of Appeals should have been dismissed.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed as to plaintiff’s appeal.

*Judgment reversed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur in the judgment of reversal.

As to the appeal of the defendant below, there not being four judges of this court who are of the opinion that the trial court committed error in overruling the motions of the defendant for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the judgment of the Court of Appeals, affirming the judgment of the *180Court of Common Pleas in that respect, is therefore affirmed.

Zimmerman and Williams, JJ., concur in the judgment of affirmance.

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias and Hart, JJ., are of opinion that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed and final judgment entered for defendant below on its motion for a directed verdict and for judgment *non obstante veredicto.*

Day, J., is of opinion that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed and judgment entered on the verdict for the plaintiff below.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 ) 

HS SOLUTIONS, INC. et al., ) 

 ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

v. ) 

) 

Civil Action No. 18-cv-2355 (TSC) 

 ) 

L. FRANCIS CISSNA, Director, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

) 

) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

 ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Plaintiffs HS Solutions, Incorporated and Prabina Mohapatra filed this action alleging 

that a decision of the Defendant, relating to an H-1B visa application, was arbitrary and 

capricious. On May 8, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the decision 

Plaintiffs challenge has been vacated. Defs. Mot. to Dismiss pp 4-5. 

Pursuant to Local Civil rule 7(b), “[w]ithin 14 days of the date of service [of a motion], 

an opposing party shall serve and file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to 

the motion. If such memorandum is not filed within the prescribed time, the Court may treat 

the motion as conceded.” More than fourteen days have passed and Plaintiffs have not filed an 

opposition or sought an extension. 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court will grant Defendant’s motion and dismiss 

this action. 

 Date: May 29, 2019 

Tanya S. Chutkan 

TANYA S. CHUTKAN 

United States District Judge
#### JACKSON v. STATE.

No. 25215.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 21, 1951.

Rehearing Denied May 2, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol. The penalty assessed is a fine of $100.

The complaint and information, as well as all other matters of procedure, appear to be in regular form. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                                9

<MULTIPLIER>                                         1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               2,059
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               1,982
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     9,563
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                         0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          5,258
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                              87,449
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                82,288
<LOANS>                                            219,204
<ALLOWANCE>                                            742
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     337,048
<DEPOSITS>                                         281,866
<SHORT-TERM>                                           384
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  7,511
<LONG-TERM>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             5,206
<OTHER-SE>                                          42,082
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                     337,048
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                     15,329
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    6,741
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                         0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                    22,070
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                  13,890
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13,928
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                8,142
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                           21
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                       0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                      3,079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      5,486
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3,595
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .77
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        2.53
<LOANS-NON>                                          2,548
<LOANS-PAST>                                             0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                       725
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                            4
<RECOVERIES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                      742
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                   742
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                742



</TABLE>
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on March, 10, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute (“SwRI”) filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objective of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the current participants in the Fuel/Water Separation Characteristics Program are: Baldwin Filters, Kearney, NE; Caterpillar, Inc., Mossville, IL; Champion Laboratories, Inc., West Salem, IL; Davco Manufacturing , LLC, Saline, MI; and Donaldson Company, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.                

                    The general area of planned activity of the Fuel/Water Separation Characteristics Program is to study the effects of fuel additives at varying concentrations on diesel fuel's physical properties. This research project may include the study of surface tension, interfacial tension, pH, density, viscosity, conductivity and chemical                           ( print page 65883)                        composition of water separated from the fuel. In addition, the planning activity may include the evaluation of fuel/water separation using standardized SAE test methods and the testing of various types of filter media, including paper and synthetic fibers media, with different coatings, resins and other related material.                

Membership in this research group remains open, and the participants intend to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership or planned activities.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-28176 Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0398 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-SW-065-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 5/22/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

PAUL E. and EMMA HARPER,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 95-7063

(D.C. No. CIV 94-073-S)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, BRISCOE and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs Paul and Emma Harper appeal the district court’s denial of attorney fees

they expended to prosecute their action against the United States to recover late filing

penalties assessed by the Internal Revenue Service. In this case, plaintiffs received

automatic and discretionary extensions to file their income tax returns for the years 1988-

1990. See 26 U.S.C. § 6081(a). Relying on the advice of their accountant, plaintiffs

estimated their tax liability to be $30,000 in 1988, $24,625 in 1989, and $0 in 1990. 
- 2 -

Their actual tax liability turned out to be $158,585 in 1988, $89,290 in 1989, and $94,030

in 1990. Based on these repeated discrepancies, the IRS retroactively revoked plaintiffs’

filing extensions and assessed penalties of about $47,000. See 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1).

Plaintiffs paid the penalties and sued for a refund, arguing that they had good

cause for their estimations. The good cause defense was based on reliance on their

reputable accountant, and on past years’ losses from investments for which plaintiffs had

been entitled to take deductions. The district court agreed and awarded plaintiffs a refund

of penalties. The district court found the IRS’s position in revoking the extensions

substantially justified, however, because of the large discrepancy between the amounts

estimated and the final tax liability. 

Under 26 U.S.C. § 7430(a), a “prevailing party” in a tax refund proceeding may be

entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. A private plaintiff is the “prevailing party” if she

substantially prevailed on her claim, and the position of the United States in the

proceeding was not “substantially justified.” 26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4)(A). The

government’s position is “substantially justified” if it has a “reasonable basis both in law

and fact.” Pate v. United States, 982 F.2d 457, 459 (10th Cir. 1993) (quotation and

citation omitted). We review the district court’s denial of reasonable litigation costs

under § 7430 for an abuse of discretion. Id.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and cases cited therein, the district court’s

orders and findings, and the record on appeal. Based on this review, we cannot say that
- 3 -

the district court abused its discretion in determining that the IRS was substantially

justified in revoking plaintiffs’ extensions and assessing penalties. Accordingly, the

district court’s order denying plaintiffs’ applications for attorney’s fees and costs is

AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge
From: McCurdy, Dave [ mailto:DMcCurdy@aga.org ]

Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 5:47 PM

To: Secretary Moniz

Cc: Knobloch, Kevin; Kenderdine, Melanie

Subject: DOE Furnace Product Class

Dear Secretary Moniz:

Thank you for the opportunity to brief your staff in recent weeks on an impact analysis of a national

condensing furnace standard, which was conducted jointly by the American Gas Association (AGA), the

American Public Gas Association (APGA), and the Gas Technology Institute (GTI). Our analysis strongly

indicates significant adverse consequences are likely to accrue under a national condensing rule

standard, if the rule is not configured to minimize the likelihood of fuel switching from natural gas to

electrical space and water heating equipment.

As we have expressed to your staff, we are deeply concerned that

– if not appropriately structured

– this

rule could prove to be the first energy efficiency standard issued in the history of the Department that

has the real

‐ world impact of increasing our nation’s overall energy consumption and carbon footprint.

We look forward to working with you and your staff in developing a rule that assures real benefits to the

nation.

Sincerely,

Dave

Dave McCurdy | President and Chief Executive Officer

American Gas Association

400 N. Capitol St., NW | Washington, DC | 20001

P: 202

‐ 824

‐ 7111 | F: 202

‐ 824

‐ 9111 | dmccurdy@aga.org

The American Gas Association represents more than 200 local energy companies committed to the safe delivery of

clean natural gas to over 68 million customers throughout the nation.
**Exhibit
        23.1**
   **Consent
        of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
  The
        General Partner
  Essex
        Portfolio, L.P.:
  We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
        on
        Form S-3 (Nos. 333-131276, 333-102552, 333-44467, and 333-108336) and
        the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-123001) of Essex
        Portfolio, L.P. of our reports dated March 15, 2006, with respect to the
        consolidated balance sheets of Essex Portfolio, L.P. and subsidiaries as
        of
        December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of
        operations, partners’ capital, and cash flows for each of the years in the
        three-year period ended December 31, 2005, and the related financial
        statement schedule III, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of
        internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, and the
        effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
        December 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005
        annual report on Form 10-K of Essex Portfolio, L.P.
  
 /S/ KPMG LLP
 KPMG LLP
  
   San
        Francisco, California
 March
        15,
        2006
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00363-CV 

IN RE INNOVATIVE PLASTICS 

CORP.

RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of 

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DELIVERED: November 1, 2013

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).