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

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-72-000]

Take notice that on October 31, 2000, Wyoming Interstate Company (WIC), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 2, Seventh Revised Sheet No. 4B, with an effective date of December 1, 2000.

WIC states that Seventh Revised Sheet No. 4B, reflects increases in the percentages for Fuel, Lost and Unaccounted-for Gas (FL&U Percentage) from .45% to .63% for its Existing System transport, from 1.72% to 1.92% for its Powder River Incremental transport and from .48% to .68% for its Medicine Bow Incremental transport, based on the data contained in the twelve month data collection period ending August 31, 2000, to be effective on December 1, 2000.

WIC states that copies of the filing were served upon the company's jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.

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, NE., Washington, DC 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). Comments and protests may be filed  electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David. P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-28755  Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

JORGE SANCHEZ

Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

NO. 3:22-CR-108-K

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court referred the request for revocation of Defendant’s Supervised Release 

to United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford for consideration. The Court 

has received the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to its order. Defendant having waived allocution before this Court as well as 

his right to object to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 

Judge, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate 

Judge are correct.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ADOPTED as 

the opinion and findings of the Court. It is further ORDERED that the Defendant be 

Case 3:22-cr-00108-K Document 51 Filed 12/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 389
PAGE 2

committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of TIME 

SERVED. No term of Supervised Release to follow. 

SO ORDERED.

Signed December 1st, 2022.

_______________________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00108-K Document 51 Filed 12/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 390
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-60541

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY LEWIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. W-91-CR-5-B

- - - - - - - - - -

July 9, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Anthony Lewis has filed a brief

as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and

Lewis has filed a response. Our independent review of the briefs

and record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel

is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal

is dismissed.

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### Ex parte BALL.

No. 24711.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 11, 1950.

W. W. Holland, Jr., Houston, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Relator, a convict in, the .State penitentiary serving a sentence imposed by the Criminal District Court of Harris County, presented to this Court his application for the writ of habeas corpus seeking his discharge from custody, claiming that said sentence was void because he was not represented by counsel upon the trial of the case and that such constituted a denial of due process under our State and Federal Constitutions.

We granted permission to file the application and, under the provisions of Art. 119, C.C.P., Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 119, directed the Judge of the Criminal District Court of Harris County to develop the facts relative to relator’s claim of trial without representation by counsel. In accordance with that order, the judge of said court developed the facts- — relator and his counsel being present and participating therein. ‘ ; *

The facts so developed have been certified to this Court and show that relator pleaded guilty to the offense charged and was, at the time, represented by counsel appointed by the court.

Relator’s claim of trial without representation by counsel does not find support in the facts.

The writ of habeas corpus is refused.

Opinion approved by the Court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY & 

VICTOR J. BOSCHINI, JR.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00297-O

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Claims

Against Victor J. Boschini (ECF No. 50), filed May 20, 2022. Defendants move under Rule 

12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Victor Boschini, arguing that (1) Title IX does not 

authorize suits against school officials, and (2) Plaintiff fails to allege a binding contract between 

Plaintiff and Boschini. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the 

motion and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims against Victor J. Boschini with prejudice.

SO ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 57 Filed 06/13/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 3820
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5 
<LEGEND>  
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated   balance   sheet,   consolidated   statement  of  operations   and
consolidated statement of cash flows included in the Company's Form 10-K for the
period  ended June 27,  1997,  and is  qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JUN-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-27-1997
<CASH>                             28,923
<SECURITIES>                       44,301
<RECEIVABLES>                       7,658
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                         8,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  100,538
<PP&E>                              9,620
<DEPRECIATION>                      3,176
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    107,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              10,275
<BONDS>                                 9
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                              252
<OTHER-SE>                         96,565
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      107,101
<SALES>                            78,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   78,358
<CGS>                              27,262
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      63,145
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    17,854
<INCOME-TAX>                        6,963
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                10,891
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       10,891
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.41
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HORIZON MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,991,427
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,123,206
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,031,751
<INVENTORY>                                 19,647,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,192,237
<PP&E>                                       5,328,246
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,644,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             102,397,472
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,265,406
<BONDS>                                     44,998,709
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,366
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,055,630
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               102,397,472
<SALES>                                     75,370,657
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            75,370,657
<CGS>                                       48,010,817
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               48,010,817
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,146,901
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,140,134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,171,843
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,506,625
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,665,218
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,665,218
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12


</TABLE>
#### CITY OF STAMFORD *v.*LJUBICA RADULOVIC ET AL.

*H. Jeffrey Beck,*in support of the petition.

The petition by the defendant Milivoje Kovac for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 912 (AC 16672), is denied.

*909
      *James V. Minor,*assistant corporation counsel, in opposition.

Decided June 10, 1998
EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SkillSoft Public Limited Company (the“Company”) for the period ended July 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Charles E. Moran, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: September 10, 2007                                                                           /s/ Charles E. Moran   Charles E. Moran   Chief Executive Officer
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: November 21 , 2014 TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR
- 2013 -0602 FROM: Rob Lawrence

EPA/Region 6/PD SUBJECT: October 16 , 2014 Panel Presentation at a conference sponsored by Americans

for a Clean Energy Grid R egarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
**SUMMARY** A panel presentation was made by EPA at a conference sponsored by Americans for a Clean Energy Grid on October 1 6, 2014, to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants, which was proposed on June 2, 2014. The meeting was in New Orleans, Louisiana . **ATTENDEES** Participants: Large general audience EPA Participant : Rob Lawrence (Region 6 Energy Po licy Advisor)
Exhibit 32.1



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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Secured Digital Applications,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly  period ending  September
30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  I, Patrick  Soon-Hock Lim, Chief Executive  Officer  (principal
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, to
my knowledge:

         (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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Patrick Soon-Hock Lim

Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
Chief Executive Officer
November 19, 2008

                                       24
#### HARNED v. STATE.

No. 25173.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 28, 1951.

No attorney on appeal.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The appeal is from a conviction for the offense of driving a motor vehicle upon a public road while intoxicated, the punishment having been assessed at' a "fine of $50.

There are no bills of exception and no statement of facts, and the proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7694

MARLON BRAMWELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.

(CA-05-460-7; CA-03-2065)

Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 26, 2006

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marlon Bramwell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Marlon Bramwell appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000),

which the district court construed as a complaint filed pursuant to

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403

U.S. 388 (1971), and dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000),

and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. See Bramwell v. Fed. Prison Indus., Nos.

CA-05-460-7; CA-03-2065 (W.D. Va. July 19 & Sept. 28, 2005). 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
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Eric S. Yeaman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Turnstone Systems, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Turnstone Systems, Inc. A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Turnstone Systems, Inc., and will be retained by Turnstone Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                    |  |  |  |                                                    
|------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 2, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Eric S. Yeaman                                 
|                    |  |  |  | Eric S. Yeaman                                     
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

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

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of
1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of this Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



32
EXHIBIT
32.1





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





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SkillSoft Public Limited
Company (the "Company") for the period ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Charles E. Moran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his
knowledge:





(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.




SKILLSOFT
      PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANYDate:
      June 9, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      Charles E. MoranCharles
      E. MoranChief
      Executive Officer
#### EARP v. STATE.

No. 25206.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 14, 1951.

Rehearing Denied May 16, 1951.

J. O. Duncan, Gilmer, for appellant. .

R. S. Burruss, County Atty., Tyler, and George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the sale of whiskey in a dry area, and his punishment assessed by the jury at 90 days in jail and a fine of $500.

Motion for new trial was overruled on September 18, 1950, and the, 90 days allowed thereafter for filing the statement of facts and bills of exception expired on December 18,1950.

The statement of facts and the lone bill of exception appearing in the record show to have been filed on December 21, 1950, and therefore after the expiration of the time allowed by law and by the court’s order.

Appellant, by affidavit of his counsel, contends that the statement of facts was delivered to the trial judge on December 6, 1950, and that through no fault of appellant or his counsel the filing was delayed beyond the time provided therefor. He contends that it is within the discretion of this court, under such facts, to reverse the case on the theory that appellant has been deprived of a statement of facts without fault or negligence on his part.

If we should agree with appellant’s contention that the delay in filing the statement of facts and bill of exception was not due to fault or laches of himself or his attorney, but was the result of causes beyond his control, this court would be authorized to consider the statement of facts as though filed in time See Bailey v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 429, 195 S.W.2d 361.

The bill of exception is directed to a remark of the county attorney in his closing argument and is insufficient in that it fails to show that the argument, if in fact erroneous, was not made in reply to argument of appellant’s counsel.

•There are no objections or exceptions to the court’s charge, and the requested charges were properly refused.

*978The evidence shows the sale of whiskey to the complaining- witness in the county shown by the proof to he dry.

If the statement of facts and bill of exception are entitled to consideration, they show no error and the judgment must be affirmed. If not considered, the same result must follow. In neither case would we be justified in reversing the judgment upon the theory advanced by appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.