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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [Report No. 2449]

Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by November 14, 2000. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired.

*Subject:*                     Amendment of Section 73.202(b) Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations. (Rangely, Silverton and Ridgway, Colorado) (MM Docket No. 99-151, RM-9559, RM-9932).                

*Number of Petitions Filed:*                     1.                

*Subject:*                     Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Spread Spectrum Devices (ET Docket No. 99-231).                

*Number of Petitions Filed:*                     1.                

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-28614  Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-51062 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM FOURIE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-97-CR-160-1-SS

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

February 15, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent William Fourie

(“Fourie”) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief

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

has filed a response. Our independent review of the brief, the

response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel

is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL

IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

LUBBOCK DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

,,.,.....,, 

!Ji ; 

v. CASE NO. 5:22-CR-030-H-BQ-1 

JOSHUA JAMES WHITFIELD 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLEA 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

\O: DO 

This case has been referred by the United States district judge to the undersigned 

for the taking of a guilty plea. The parties have consented to appear before a United States 

magistrate judge for these purposes. This Report and Recommendation on Plea is submitted 

to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). 

The defendant appeared with counsel before the undersigned United States 

magistrate judge, who addressed the defendant personally in open court and informed the 

defendant of, and determined that the defendant understood, the admonitions contained in 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The defendant pleaded guilty (under a written plea bargain agreement with the 

government) to Count One of the Indictment, charging defendant with a violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(l) and 924(a)(2), that is, Convicted Felon in Possession of a 

Firearm. After examining Defendant under oath the undersigned magistrate judge finds 

the following: 

1. Defendant, upon advice of counsel, has consented orally and in writing 

to enter this guilty plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final 

approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge; 

Case 5:22-cr-00030-H-BV Document 23 Filed 06/08/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 39
2. Defendant fully understands the nature of the charges (including each 

essential element of the offense(s) charged) and penalties; 

3. Defendant fully understands the terms of the plea agreement and plea 

agreement supplement; 

4. Defendant understands all constitutional and statutory rights and wishes 

to waive these rights, including the right to a trial by jury and the right 

to appear before a United States district judge; 

5. Defendant's plea is made freely and voluntarily; 

6. Defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; 

7. There is a factual basis for this plea; and 

8. The ends of justice are served by acceptance of the defendant's plea of 

guilty. 

Although I have conducted these proceedings and recommend acceptance of 

Defendant's plea of guilty, the United States district judge has the power to review my 

actions and possesses final decision-making authority in this proceeding. Thus, if 

Defendant has any objections to these findings or any other action of the undersigned, he 

is required to make those known to the United States district judge within fourteen (14) 

days of today. 

Based on the above, I recommend that Defendant's plea of guilty be accepted, that 

Defendant be adjudged guilty, and that sentence be imposed accordingly. 

Signed June 8, 2022. 

D. GORDON BRYANT, J 

UNITED STATES MA GIST TE JUDGE 

Case 5:22-cr-00030-H-BV Document 23 Filed 06/08/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 40
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0734

_________________

WILLIAM SCOTT ROGERS, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

 v.

LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY, LEWIS & CLARK 

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, LEO C. 

DUTTON in his capacity as Lewis & Clark County 

Sheriff, JASON GRIMMIS, in his capacity as 

Lewis & Clark County Undersheriff and former 

Captain for the Lewis & Clark County Detention 

Center, ALAN HUGHES, in his capacity as 

Captain for the Lewis & Clark Detention Center, 

JOHN and JANE DOES 1 through 50, in their 

capacity as Employees of the Lewis & Clark 

County Detention Center,

 Defendants and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of the 

Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellant’s opening brief 

filed on March 27, 2020, this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with 

the below-referenced Rule and must be resubmitted. 

M. R. App. P. 12(1)(i) require appellants to attach an appendix including “the 

relevant judgment, order(s), findings of fact, conclusion of law, jury instruction(s), 

ruling(s), or decision(s) from which the appeal is taken together with any written 

memorandum or rationale of the court, and those pages of the transcript containing any 

oral ruling in support.” Appellant’s brief contains an appendix with an index, but does 

not include the referenced order.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the referenced brief is rejected. 

03/30/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0734
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order the 

Appellant shall file with the Clerk of this Court a revised brief containing the revisions 

necessary to comply with the specified Rule and that the Appellant shall serve copies of 

the revised brief on all parties of record;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no changes, additions, or deletions other than 

those specified in this Order may be made to the brief as originally filed; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the times for any subsequent briefing contained 

in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of the revised brief.

The Clerk is directed to provide a true copy of this Order to the Appellant and to 

all parties of record. 

Electronically signed by:

Ingrid Gustafson

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 30 2020
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00569

- CR

Kristi Rene NIX

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B11614

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Any other pending motions

for relief are DENIED.

SIGNED April 22, 2015.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MONICA McREYNOLDS, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00194-O-BP

 §

BELL TEXTRON, INC., § 

 §

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a 

Recommendation in this case. No objections were filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation is ripe for review. The District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned District 

Judge believes that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and 

they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is 

GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further 

ORDERED that the Motion for Default Judgment and Request for Final Judgment (ECF 

Nos. 18, 19) are DENIED.

SO ORDERED on this 14th day of July, 2022. 

Case 4:22-cv-00194-O Document 23 Filed 07/14/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 118
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|West Coast (PADD 5) Natural Gas Used as Feedstock for Hydrogen Production (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|West Coast (PADD 5) Natural Gas Used as Feedstock for Hydrogen Production (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 52,844 | 48,937
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 50,488 | 56,163 | 54,674 | 56,316 | 58,922 | 58,145 | 62,333 | 62,090 | 62,059 | 66,914
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 48,301 | 42,118 | 43,634 | 43,464 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
#### Kemper WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Perry MORROW, Appellee.

No. 12723.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 10, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 8, 1954.

Joe E. Kelly, Victoria, for appellant.

J. Barney Daniel, Edward L. Dunlap, Victoria, for appellee.

POPE, Justice.

The trial court instructed a verdict against appellant, Kemper Williams, who had brought suit against Perry Morrow for a claimed balance of $847.61, owed for various kinds of insurance coverage on a fleet of .trucks and automobiles owned.by Morrow. The suit was for debt. Morrow asserted various defenses, but relied chiefly on' the grounds that he offered to buy insurance within the area known to the insurance business as Zone Three and at rates fixed for that zone only. He asserted that appellant, Williams, wrote the insurance for Zone One, which includes Tarrant, Dallas and Harris Counties, and that such insurance bore a much higher rate. He asserted that he never contracted to purchase insurance applicable to Zone One, and that he is not liable, for such insurance.

After appellant presented his case in dpief, the. trial court.withdrew the case from the jury and awarded judgment in favor of the appellee, Morrow. The proof supported the defense, for appellant answered affirmatively that Morrow wanted his public liability insurance restricted to Zone Three. After Williams wrote the insurance covering Zone One, Morrow protested. Williams answered affirmatively the question whether Morrow then told him,. “I don’t want this type of insurance because I can’t afford to pay those kind of premiums.” Appellant’s proof showed that Morrow paid two premium installments, but did so upon appellant’s promise to obtain a rate adjustment in conformity to Zone Three rates. Those payments did not 'amount to more than was chargeable for Zone Three insurance. Upon appellant’s failure to make the rate adjustment, Morrow refused to make any further payments. The whole record shows that Morrow ordered insurance for Zone Three, .that.he never varied that offer, nor agreed to ac*910cept Zone One insurance. This defense was proved from the mouth of appellant. Appellant’s own testimony destroyed his claim. When a party testifies to positive and definite facts, which if true would defeat his right to recover, and such statements are not subsequently modified or explained by him so as to show that he was mistaken, although testifying in good faith he is bound by such admissions and cannot successfully complain if the court directs a verdict against him. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. State, 136 Tex. 5, 26, 133 S.W.2d 767, 145 S.W.2d 569.

The judgment is 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

      In connection  with the Annual Report of Nexicon,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  each  of the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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  operation of the
Company.

Date:  July 14, 2005                            By:  /s/ Richard Urrea
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Richard Urrea, President and
                                                  Chief Executive Officer


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authentications,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signature
that  appears  in typed  form  within the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to Nexicon,  Inc. and will
be retained by Nexicon,  Inc.  and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                 EXHIBIT 32.1-1
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 23 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 23

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the Architect of the Capitol to transfer the catafalque to 
                the Supreme Court for a funeral service.






103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 23

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed to 
transfer to the custody of the Chief Justice of the United States the 
catafalque which is presently situated in the crypt beneath the rotunda 
of the Capitol so that the said catafalque may be used in the Supreme 
Court Building in connection with services to be conducted there for 
the late Honorable Thurgood Marshall, former Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the United States.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 26, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 262 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 262

To express the sense of the Congress that marinas should not be treated 
    as offshore facilities for purposes of financial responsibility 
             requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 1994

Mr. Gejdenson submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
referred jointly to the Committees on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and 
                    Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
To express the sense of the Congress that marinas should not be treated 
    as offshore facilities for purposes of financial responsibility 
             requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

Whereas the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was enacted in part in response to the 
        EXXON VALDEZ oil spill, which discharged approximately 11,000,000 
        gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound, Alaska;
Whereas that Act was enacted to prevent similar disasters in the future and to 
        ensure that companies transporting and drilling for oil had sufficient 
        financial resources, insurance, or other means to pay for comprehensive 
        cleanup and environmental restoration in response to discharges of oil 
        into navigable waters;
Whereas that Act required offshore facilities which could pollute navigable 
        waters of the United States to provide proof of financial responsibility 
        of at least $150,000,000;
Whereas marinas sell gasoline and diesel fuel only, and in fiscal year 1993 
        reported only 64 gasoline and diesel fuel spills nationwide which 
        resulted in the discharge of a total of 9,642 gallons of gasoline and 
        fuel oil;
Whereas marinas do not have the capital to self-insure or receive letters of 
        credit for $150,000,000 and insurance policies are unavailable to them 
        for that amount; and
Whereas requiring marinas to demonstrate $150,000,000 in financial 
        responsibility could drive many of them out of business with subsequent 
        negative impacts on their owners and employees, boaters, and coastal 
        residents: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) marinas should not be treated as offshore facilities 
        for the purposes of section 1016 of the Oil Pollution Act of 
        1990 (33 U.S.C. 2716); and
            (2) any regulations under that Act that require offshore 
        facilities to demonstrate $150,000,000 in financial 
        responsibility should not apply to marinas.
                                 <all>
```