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

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 26714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11184]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DOD-2011-OS-0050]

Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to Delete a System of Records.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency proposes to delete a system of 
records notice in its existing inventory of records systems subject to 
the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
June 8, 2011 unless comments are received which result in a contrary 
determination.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by dock number and/RIN 
number and title, by any of the following methods:
    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    * Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense 
Pentagon, OSD Mailroom 3C843, Washington, DC 20301-1160.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this 
Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other 
submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions 
available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any 
personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Sinkler at (703) 767-5045, or 
Chief Privacy and FOIA Officer, Headquarters Defense Logistics Agency, 
ATTN: DGA, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 1644, Fort Belvoir, VA 
22060-6221.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Logistics Agency systems of 
records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 
amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available 
from the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT address above.
    The specific changes to the record system being amended are set 
forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its 
entirety. The proposed amendment is not within the purview of 
subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, 
which requires the submission of new or altered systems reports.

    Dated: May 3, 2011.
Morgan F. Park,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

DELETION:
System identifier and name:
    S170.06, Legal Assistance (November 12, 2008; 73 FR 66860).

Reason:
    DLA Land and Maritime no longer provides legal assistance to 
service members; therefore, this notice is being deleted from the DLA 
inventory of systems of records. Service members seeking legal 
assistance are referred to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

[FR Doc. 2011-11184 Filed 5-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 213 (Thursday, November 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28175]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Advanced Lead-Acid Battery Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 29, 2000, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Advanced Lead-Acid Battery 
Consortium (``ALABC'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Advanced Transport Systems Ltd, Bristol, United Kingdom; 
Northstar Battery, LLC, Springfield, MO; and Korea Storage Battery, 
Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea have been added as parties to this 
venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and ALABC intends to file additional 
written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 15, 1992 ALABC filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 29, 
1992 (57 FR 33522).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 29, 
2000. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on August 11, 2000 (65 FR 49260).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-28175 Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2053

BENJAMIN TATE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

NC PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF CHARLOTTE, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:09-cv-00036-MOC-DSC)

Submitted: May 8, 2012 Decided: May 11, 2012

Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lena Watts-Robinson, LAW OFFICE OF LEAN WATTS-ROBINSON, P.A., 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall D. Avram, 

Michael T. Rosenberg, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Tate appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment for the Appellee on Tate’s claims of

disability and race discrimination and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Tate v. NC Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., No. 

3:09-cv-00036-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 2011). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### LAWRENCE v. STATE.

No. 24607.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 18, 1950.

None on appeal.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is. for driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated. Upon appellant’s plea of guilty, punishment was assessed at a fine of $50.

No statement of facts nor bills of exceptions are found in the record.

The judgment, is affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 21, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 21, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20D0140. GARRIAN SLEDGE et al. v. MELANIE MIDDLETON.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

16EV005409
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          10,944
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,544
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     33,722
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,840
<PP&E>                                          15,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,661
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,651
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,751
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,661
<SALES>                                        238,457
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               238,457
<CGS>                                          215,453
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  215,453
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,886
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (35)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,847)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,847)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,847)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.66)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

KEN PAXTON, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 4:22-cv-0143-P

STEVEN M. DETTELBACH, ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court are the Parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary 

Judgment (ECF Nos. 49, 53). The Court hereby SETS the Parties’

Motions for a hearing at 2:00 p.m. on June 15, 2023, in the Fourth 

Floor Courtroom of the Eldon B. Mahon United States Court, 501 W. 

10th Street, Fort Worth, Texas, 76102. Counsel for all parties are 

ORDERED to attend. Counsel should be prepared to discuss all issues 

raised in the Parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment and all matters 

pending before the Court. 

SO ORDERED on this 6th day of June 2023.

Case 4:22-cv-00143-P Document 57 Filed 06/06/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1073
#### SHACKLEY v. STATE.

No. 25121.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 24, 1951.

Rehearing Denied March 14, 1951.

None on appeal, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge,

The appeal is from a conviction for the sale of liquor in a dry area, with a fine of $100.

The record in this appeal contains neither a statement of facts nor bill of exception. All proceedings appear regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements of American Architectural Products Corporation
as of June 30, 1999 and for the three months then ended and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         312,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               36,360,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,075,000
<INVENTORY>                                 34,545,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            74,538,000
<PP&E>                                      93,257,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,680,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             198,891,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       73,302,000
<BONDS>                                    125,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,933,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               198,891,000
<SALES>                                     81,845,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            81,845,000
<CGS>                                       65,819,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               65,819,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,520,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,216,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,346,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,346,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,346,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)


</TABLE>
Motion Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed Dec ember 10 ,

2013.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00698

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R .E.T.R AND D.D.R, JR ., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. 2012

- 04492J



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant, D.D.R. , a ppeals a final decree signed July 16 , 20 13 , terminating his parental rights to the child ren wh o are the subject of the underlying suit. The trial court found that appellant i s indigent and appointed counsel t o represent him in this appeal.
Appellant ’ s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal
is wholl y frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1 967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be2

advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of par ental rights when an appointed attorney concludes that there are no non

- frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
A copy of counsel ’ s brief was delivered to ap pellant. Appellan t was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford
v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d at
329

– 30. This court provided appellant a copy of the record and advised him that any pro se response was required to be filed on or before October 28, 2013

. No response has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel ’ s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no r eversib le error in
the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the

state. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jamison.
Case 3:22-cv-00735-S-BN   Document 39   Filed 01/12/24    Page 1 of 2   PageID 400

Case 3:22-cv-00735-S-BN   Document 39   Filed 01/12/24    Page 2 of 2   PageID 401
FILED

January 30, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

VICKIE DIANNE TUTTLE, )

)

Plaintiff/Appellee, )

)

) Coffee Circuit

VS. ) No. 1883D

)

) Appeal No.

ROBERT EDWARD TUTTLE, ) 01A01-9512-CV-00546

)

Defendant/Appellant. )

O R D E R

This appeal involves a contested divorce proceeding in which one of the

litigants is an incarcerated felon. We filed our opinion affirming the trial court on

October 10, 1997 based only on our consideration of the record and the husband’s

brief because the wife did not file a brief and made no other appearance of any sort

on this appeal.

On December 23, 1997, Ms. Tuttle’s lawyer mailed a letter to the three

members of the panel explaining his role in the litigation court and taking issue with

portion of the opinion stating that “any technical defect resulting from Ms. Tuttle’s

counsel’s failure to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-107(a) is of no

consequence.” Ms. Tuttle’s lawyer asserts that he was not responsible for the

contents of Ms. Tuttle’s complaint because he was not representing her when the

complaint was filed. We will treat Ms. Tuttle’s lawyer’s letter as a late-filed petition

for rehearing. Even though the letter was not filed within ten days of the entry of our

opinion, we have determined that the unusual circumstances surrounding this appeal

warrant altering the portion of our October 10, 1997 opinion referring to counsel’s

failure to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-107(a). 

It is, therefore, ordered that the clerk file the December 23, 1997 letter and mail

a copy of the letter to Mr. Tuttle since the letter bears no indication that he has been

provided with a copy. 
-2-

If is further ordered that page 5 of the October 10, 1997 opinion be withdrawn

and replaced with the revised page 5 attached hereto.

It is further ordered that Ms. Tuttle’s lawyer, having entered the case as counsel

of record, remains Ms. Tuttle’s lawyer for all purposes, even if he is representing Ms.

Tuttle pro bono, unless he is formally relieved of his responsibilities by proper court

order.

ENTER, this ____ day of January, 1998.

__________________________________

HENRY F. TODD, PRESIDING JUDGE

MIDDLE SECTION 

__________________________________

SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE 

__________________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
MAY TERM, *1756.*

Lib. B. T. No. 1. fol. 31.

#### John Potter’s Lessee *against*Walter Purnell.

■ EJECTMENT for a tract of land called *Tur mids*Struggle, lying in *Worcester*County.

At the trial of this cause at the Assises, the plaintiff offered in evidence a grant to *John Tur mil,*dated the 25th of *March, 1751,*for the tract of land, for which this ejectment was brought. Which grant the Court permitted and allowed as a good and legal grant, notwithstanding it appeared in evidence that *John Turvill,*to whom and in whose name the grant was made, died some years before . the issuing of the *same;*but after the making of the survey, and the return of the certificate upon which the grant was made. To this opinión the defendant excepted.

The Provincial Court adjudged the exception good, and set aside the verdict which was for the plaintiff.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 208

Declaring the sense of Congress regarding periods of silence in the public

schools.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1994

Mr. JACOBS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

jointly to the Committees on the Judiciary and Education and Labor

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Declaring the sense of Congress regarding periods of silence

in the public schools.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) the Constitution of the United States does

4 not preclude a short period of silence to be used,

5 solely at the discretion of the individual student in

6 public schools, for silent prayer, meditation, con7 templation, or introspection;

8 (2) public school authorities should recognize

9 the value of such a short period of silence to be used

10 at the discretion of the individual student in public
2

•HCON 208 IH

1 schools, for silent prayer, meditation, contemplation,

2 or introspection.

Æ
#### Ex parte Jack Romeo NAPPI and Paul Jones, Appellants, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 23630.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 29, 1947.

Albert S. Baskett and Noah Roark, both •of Dallas-, for appellant.

. Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from an order of the Honorable Winter King, Judge of the ■Criminal District Court of Dallas County, fixing bond for each of the appellants in the sum of $10,000 for each of three cases, making a total of $30,000 bond for each, and a total of $60,000 in bonds for the two.

The state has filed *a/*motion to dismiss the appeal, based on the affidavit from the Sheriff of Dallas County that each of the .appellants has made bond in the amount fixed by the court below.

The motion of the state is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 170

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of

States Armed Forces from Somalia.the War Powers Resolution to remove United
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 170

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES

4 FROM SOMALIA.

5 Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolu6 tion (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), the Congress hereby directs the

7 President to remove United States Armed Forces from So8 malia by March 31, 1994 (unless the President requests

9 and the Congress authorizes a later date), except for a

10 limited number of members of the Armed Forces sufficient

11 only to protect United States diplomatic facilities and citi12 zens, and noncombatant personnel to advise the United

13 Nations commander in Somalia.

Passed the House of Representatives November 9,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### TUTTLE et al. v. GUADALUPE-BLANCO RIVER AUTHORITY et al.

No. 16180.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 27, 1943.

Brewer, Matthews, Nowlin & Macfar-lane, of San Antonio, for petitioners.

E. M. Cape and Tom G. Oliver, Jr., both of San Marcos, Fred H. Blundell, of Lock-hart, and D. W. Glasscock, W. S. Gideon, and A. J. Wirtz, all of Austin, for respondents.

CRITZ, Justice.

At a former day in this term of court we “Refused For Want of Merit” application for writ of error No. 27098, filed by the above-named petitioners against the above-named respondents. Such application for writ of error is now before us on motion for rehearing filed by the petitioners in the application. Such motion is No. 16180.

 We “Refused For Want of Merit” the application for writ of error in this case because we were of the opinion that the Court of Civil Appeals correctly held that the plaintiffs who brought this suit in the district court were, and are, without lawful authority to bring or maintain the same. We are still of that opinion. Since we hold that the parties who brought this suit were, and are, without authority to bring or maintain it, we do not consider it proper for us to express an opinion on its merits. We therefore do not do so.

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing above mentioned be, and the same is hereby, overruled.
#### Ex parte ADAMS.

No. 24817.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 15, 1950.

Joel W. Cook, Houston, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, 'Commissioner.

■ By this proceeding, Relator sought to obtain release on bail pending appeal from a nunc pro tunc entry of a corrected judg.ment -after receipt by the. trial -court, of a mandate affirming his conviction in Adams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 229 S.W.2d 64.

This court recalled sudh mandate and in doing so directed that Relator be. enlarged upon the original appeal Ibond.

The defect of form in the judgment was thereafter corrected by order of .this court reforming same so as to make it conform to the verdict. As so reformed the conviction was affirmed, and mandate has issued.

The attempted appeal from the nunc pro tunc entry of judgment by the trial court in Adams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 234 S.W.2d 422, has since been dismissed.

The question here raised being moot, Relator’s -application for habeas corpus is. dismissed.

Opinion approved by tihe Court