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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Nursing Research Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         October 31, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         2:00 PM to Adjournment.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Building 45, Room 3AN-18B, MD 20882, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Mary J. Stephens-Frazier, PhD., Scientific Review Administrator, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN32, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-5971.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 24, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-28116  Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### TEXAS EMPLOYERS’ INS. ASS’N v. LEE.

No. A-4032.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 25, 1953.

Rehearing Denied April 29, 1953.

Burford, Ryburn, Hincks & Ford and Howard Jensen, Dallas, for petitioner.

White & Yarborough, Dallas, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

It necessarily follows from our recent holding in Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Hatton, Tex.Sup., 255 S.W.2d 848, that the trial court erred in overruling the motions of our petitioner insurance carrier, which agreed that any award of workmen’s compensation should be paid in a lump sum and accordingly requested the Court to forbid reading to the jury the portions of respondent’s pleading with regard to (a) approval of the amount of attorney fees to be paid by respondent and (b) facts (including the liability of respondent for attorney fees and the personal financial status of respondent) bearing on the right of respondent to a lump-sum as against weekly payments of whatever he might recover. It also follows that the actual reading to the jury of the mentioned portions of respondent’s pleading over the objection of petitioner was, under the circumstances, reversible error. The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, 254 S.W.2d 902, affirming the trial court judgment for the respondent, is thus in conflict with Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Hatton', supra, and must be reversed, whatever the merit of thé other points for reversal which petitioner presents. None of the latter a're such as to entail a rendition for petitioner, if sustained, and conceivably the questions they reflect will not arise on another trial. We may, therefore, prop*570erly reverse 'both judgments below and remand the cause for a new trial without the formality of granting the writ of error and hearing oral argument. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re King’s Estate, Tex.Sup., 244 S.W.2d 660, 664. It is so ordered.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28640]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-569-001]


Portland Natural Gas Transmission System; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

November 2, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 27, 2000, Portland Natural Gas 
Transmission System (PNGTS) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff 
sheets, to become effective March 27, 2000:

Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 351
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 352
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 354
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 355

    PNGTS states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
requirements of the Commission's October 19, 2000 order in this 
proceeding.
    PNGTS states that copies of the filing were mailed to all affected 
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. 00-28640 Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
| (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: March      16, 2009 | By:                                                                                   |  /s/      Evan L. Kaplan |
|                           | Evan      L. KaplanPresident      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal      Executive Officer) |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ORDER STRIKING AND UNFILING DOCUMENT(S)

The Court has independently determined that the document(s) below should be stricken and unfiled. Accordingly, it is ordered 

that the document(s) is/are stricken from the record of this case, and the Clerk is directed to note on the docket that the 

document(s) has/have been unfiled.

DATE U.S. DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY

Judge:

Case Number: Style:

Date:

*******************

 1. A civil cover sheet must be filed with the complaint. See LR 3.1(a) or LR 3.2(c).

 2. The document(s) must be in proper form. See LR 10.1 or LCrR 49.3.

 3. The signature of the attorney of record, which includes a party proceeding pro se, is required on each 

A(n) has been filed by

 and is considered deficient in the area(s) noted below:

document filed. See FED. R. Civ. P. 11(a), FED. R. Crim. P. 49(d), LR 11.1(b), or LCrR 49.5(b).

 5. Each separate document contained therein must be identified. See LR 5.1(c) or LCrR 49.2(c).

 4. A completed certificate of service is required. See FED. R. Civ. P. 5(d) or FED. R. Crim. P. 49(d).

 6. The motion or response must include:

 brief in support of motion. See LR 7.1(d), LR 56.5(a), or LCrR 47.1(d).

 certificate of conference or inability to confer. See LR 7.1(b) or LCrR 47.1(b).

 proposed order. See LR 7.1(c) or LCrR 47.1(c).

 documentary or non-documentary evidence in a separate appendix. See LR 7.1(i) or LR 56.6.

a.

b.

c.

d.

See LR 15.1(a) and (b). If the motion for leave to amend is filed on paper, the motion must be 

accompanied by an original and second copy of the proposed amended pleading that is neither attached to the 

motion nor made an exhibit to the motion. See LR 15.1(a).

 7. A motion for leave to amend must have a copy of the proposed amended pleading attached as an exhibit.

 8. A motion for continuance of a trial setting must be signed by the party as well as by the attorney of record. 

See LR 40.1.

 10. Additional copies are required. See LR 5.1(b) or LCrR 49.2(b).

 9. An attorney seeking pro hac vice admission must apply for admission on an approved form and pay the 

 11. The attorney filing the pleading is not admitted to practice in this district. See LR 83.7 or LCrR 57.7.

applicable fee. See LR 83.9(b) or LCrR 57.9(b).

 12. The document requires a separately signed certificate of interested persons. See LR 3.1(c), LR 3.2(e), 

 13. Other:

LR 7.4, LR 81.1 (a)(3)(D), or LR 81.2.

Case 4:22-cv-00228-O Document 12 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 109
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 99-41451

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHNNY JAMES MONSEVAIZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-97-CR-211-1

_________________

No. 99-41452

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
* Pursuant to 5

TH 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 5

TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

-2-

versus

JOHNNY JAMES MONSEVAIZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-97-CR-269-1

December 6, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Grant Jones, the attorney appointed to represent Johnny James Monsevaiz, has moved for

leave to withdraw from the appeal of Monsevaiz’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), being a convicted felon in possession

of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and failure to appear, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1) and 1346(b)(1)(A)(ii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), Jones has filed a brief stating that he finds no meritorious issues for review; Monsevaiz was

notified of counsel’s motion and brief and filed a response. Both counsel’s brief and our own

independent review of the record show that there are no nonfrivolousissuesfor appeal. Monsevaiz’s

contention that a Government witness was coerced to commit perjury was not presented to the

district court. An issue raised for the first time on appeal is not amenable to consideration by this
-3-

court. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct.

982 (2000). Even if we were to consider the recantation, there is still adequate physical and

circumstantial evidence to support the jury’s guilty verdict on all charges. See United States v.

Walker, 148 F.3d 518, 523 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Consequently, counsel’smotion forleave to withdrawisGRANTED, counselis excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
APRIL TERM, 1760.

#### Lord Proprietary *against*William Bond.

THIS was an action of debt brought on a sheriff’s bond.

The defendant plead the act of the 10th *July,*1729, c. 25. whereby amongst óther things it was enacted, (sect. 3.) “ that all actions thereafter to be brought on sheriffs’ “ bonds thereafter to be passed, should be sued or “ brought within the space of five years after the passing “ of such bond, and not afterwards.” That the bond on which this suit was brought, was passed after the enacting of the said act of Assembly, and that the suit had not been commenced within the space of five years after the passing of the act. *The plaintiff*replied that-an act of Assembly, passed the 2d of October, 1753, entitled “An act for se- “ curing- and recovering the money therein mentioned,” and that the said sheriff did receive the sum of-money, on account of ordinary licenses for the use of the public of this State, before the passing of the said act. *The defendant*demurred to the replication, and the Court gave judgment for the defendant.

See the pleading in 2 *Harris’s*Entries, 405.
Case 4:22-cr-00078-P Document 27 Filed 05/11/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 48
Case 4:22-cr-00078-P Document 27 Filed 05/11/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 49
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

            In connection with the quarterly report of PC Mall, Inc., a Delawarecorporation, and its wholly owned subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") onForm 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I, Frank F. Khulusi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

                    (1)  the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

                    (2)  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for theperiods indicated.  

              This Certification has notbeen, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66800-66801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28457]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Environmental Impact Statement: Southcentral, Alaska

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Amended Notice of Intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is issuing this 
amended notice to advise the public that an environmental impact 
statement will not be prepared for the proposed Copper River Highway 
project in Southcentral, Alaska.

ADDRESSES: Federal Highway Administration, Alaska Division, 709 West 
9th Street, Room 851, P.O. Box 21648, Juneau, Alaska 99802-1648.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Haugh, Environmental/Right-of-Way 
Specialist, Federal Highway Administration, Alaska Division Office, 
P.O. Box 21648, Juneau, Alaska, 99802-1648.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Highway Administration, in 
cooperation with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 
Facilities (ADOT&PF) have agreed to terminate the preparation of the 
Copper River Highway Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This EIS was 
to study a proposed highway route, along the old Copper River and 
Northwest Railroad right-of-way, which would connect the City of 
Cordova to the Alaskan highway system. In September 2000, the Alaska 
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities made a decision to 
not pursue the proposed highway project, thus this notice is to rescind 
the earlier notice, which was published in the Federal Register on 
February 27, 1992. Letters describing the termination of the Copper 
River Highway Environmental Impact Statement will be sent to 
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private 
organizations and citizens who have previously expressed an interest in 
or are known to have an interest in this action. This information will 
be published in various newspapers throughout the State of

[[Page 66801]]

Alaska in affected regions and posted on-line on the Alaska Department 
of Transportation and Public Facilities home page 
(www.dot.state.ak.us). No formal public meetings or hearings are 
scheduled. Comments concerning the proposed action should be directed 
to the Federal Highway Administration at the address provided above.

    Dated: October 30, 2000.
David C. Miller,
Division Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-28457 Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EM-M
#### MAY et al. v. CATON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 21, 1951.

Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, Louis-yille, I. C. James, Harrodsburg, for appel-iant.

Errol W. Draffen, W. Earl Dean, Har-rodsburg, for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

A truck being operated by Carl May, in a northerly direction on a black-top county road, collided with an automobile driven by Walter Catón, which was proceeding in the opposite direction. The vehicles “sideswiped” at a point where the road curved to 'Caton’s right and to May’s left.

In an action against May, Catón recovered judgment for $5,000. On appeal, May contends that the verdict was flagrantly against the evidence.

Catón and a passenger in his car testified that the truck was on the wrong side of the road. May and a passenger in his truck testified that the automobile was on the wrong side. May’s contention is that the physical facts show conclusively that the automobile was on the wrong side.

While there is some discussion in May’s brief about skid marks on the shoulder on his side of the road, and the position of glass and debris, May 'bases 'his argument almost exclusively on photographs purporting to show the position of the two vehicles after the collision.

The photographs show the truck with its right rear wheel in the ditch on its side of the road, and with the left rear wheel and right front wheel on the edge of the paved surface. The automobile is facing south, parallel with the road lines. There is no white line marking the center of the road, but the left wheels of the automobile appear to be two or three feet across the center line, on the truck’s side.

The road slopes to the south at the point of the accident, and May admits that the truck rolled back seven or eight feet after the collision, and before the pictures were taken.

If it was undisputed that the truck rolled back only seven or eight feet, and that the automobile did not roll forward at all, after the collision, the photographs would be con*744vincing proof that the accident happened on the truck’s side of the road. However, there was testimony that the truck rolled back, or was pushed back, as much as 20 feet, and that the automobile went forward 15 or 20 .feet, after the collision and before the pictures were taken. Also, there was some testimony of disinterested witnesses that when they arrived at the scene of the accident, the left wheels of the automobile were not across the center of the road. Two deputy sheriffs, who investigated the accident, placed the left rear wheel of the car upon or slightly to the west of the center of the road.

The photographs do not overcome the testimony of the witnesses as to the position of the vehicles at the time of the collision, and we think the evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2178

SYRECEA PARKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PREMISE HEALTH EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

PREMISE HEALTH HOLDING CORPORATION; PREMISE HEALTH; 

HANNAH ANDERSON, in her Individual and Official Capacities; MINDY 

TRANTHAM, in her Individual and Official Capacities; PRISCILLA DAVIS, in her 

Individual and Official Capacities,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:18-cv-02740-MGL)

Submitted: April 27, 2021 Decided: April 30, 2021

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Syrecea Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Gilley, FORD & HARRISON LLP, 

Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Syrecea Parker appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation and granting summary judgment to Premise Health Employer Solutions, 

LLC, in Parker’s employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Parker v. Premise Health Emp. Sols., LLC, No. 3:18-cv-02740-MGL (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 

2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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  REGARDING THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM
10-K  FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010

In connection with the Annual Report of Heritage Commerce Corp (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter T. Kaczmarek, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



March 4, 2011

/s/ WALTER T. KACZMAREK Walter T. Kaczmarek Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
Case 3:22-cr-00104-X Document 48 Filed 08/22/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 102