alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28486]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of the Public Debt


Proposed Collection: Comment Request

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general 
public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment 
on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the 
Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning 
Regulations governing the offering of United States Mortgage Guaranty 
Insurance Company Tax and Loss Bonds.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before January 11, 
2001, to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, 
Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or 
copies should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public 
Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, (304) 480-6553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Regulations Governing The Offering Of 
United States Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Company Tax and Loss Bonds.
    OMB Number: 1535-0127.
    Abstract: The information is requested to establish an investor 
account, issue and redeem securities.
    Current Actions: None.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Affected Public: Business.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 37.
    Estimated Time Per Respondent: 15 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 20.

Request for Comments

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized 
and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will 
become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 
the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance 
of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates 
of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and 
purchase of services to provide information.

    Dated: November 1, 2000.
Vicki S. Thorpe,
Manager, Graphics, Printing and Records Branch.
[FR Doc. 00-28486 Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-39-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC DUARTE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

HARPREET GILL; MARTYN BEVAN,

 Defendants - Appellees,

 and

LAURA SMITH, et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 08-17332

D.C. No. 5:05-cv-01374-JF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

FILED

DEC 22 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Eric Duarte, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment arising from inadequate and

delayed medical treatment following a foot injury suffered while he was playing

handball in the prison recreational yard. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1291. We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment. Morrison v. Hall,

261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.

The district court properly entered summary judgment because Duarte failed

to establish the existence of a genuine issue of fact that either defendants Gill or

Bevan acted with deliberate indifference by requiring him to walk, at times

unassisted, on his broken foot. See Conn v. City of Reno, 572 F.3d 1047, 1055–56

(9th Cir. 2009). There is insufficient evidence from which an inference could be

drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm existed by requiring Duarte to walk

relatively short distances on his injured foot. Moreover, the evidence is

insufficient to support a finding that either Gill or Bevan actually believed that

there was a substantial risk of serious harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

837 (1994). Thus, Duarte failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of fact regarding

either defendants’ subjective awareness of a substantial risk of serious harm. See

Conn, 572 F.3d at 1056; see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). 
3

Moreover, there is insufficient evidence that either Gill or Bevan failed to respond

adequately to Duarte’s condition. See Conn, 572 F.3d at 1056, 1058. Duarte was

seen by the prison nurse within one hour after his injury, and was examined and

treated at the hospital the next day.

Duarte’s failure to satisfy his burden of showing that Gill was subjectively

aware of a serious medical need, or that he failed to respond adequately to Duarte’s

injury, entitles Gill to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). 

Moreover, because the evidence is similarly deficient as to Bevan, Duarte has

failed to demonstrate a triable issue that Bevan’s conduct violated the Eighth

Amendment. Therefore, the district court properly held that Bevan was entitled to

qualified immunity. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

AFFIRMED.
Appendix N

                            APPROVED FINANCIAL CORP.

                    EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


100% OWNED SUBSIDIARIES OF APPROVED FINANCIAL CORP.:
----------------------------------------------------

Approved Residential Mortgage, Inc.
3420 Holland Road
Suite 107
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452
State of incorporation: Virginia.
Names used in business:  Approved Residential Mortgage, Inc.
                         Approved Residential Mortgage, Inc.
                             DBA Armada Residential
                         Mortgage, Inc.

Approved Federal Savings Bank
2380 Court Plaza Drive
Suite 200
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456
State of incorporation: Federal savings bank charter.
Names used in business: Approved Federal Savings Bank.


100% OWNED SUBSIDIARIES OF APPROVED FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK:
---------------------------------------------------------

Global Title Insurance Agency, Inc.
2380 Court Plaza Drive
Suite 200
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456
State of incorporation: Virginia.
Names used in business: Global Title Insurance Agency, Inc.


First Security Mortgage Bankers, Inc.
2380 Court Plaza Drive
Suite 200
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456
State of incorporation: Virginia.
Names used in business: First Security Mortgage Bankers, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

DAVID SAMBRANO, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No.: 4:21- 01074-P

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., 

Defendant.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 

Injunction, and the entire record herein, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on 

the merits of their claims under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act and that Plaintiffs 

will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction. Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 

Injunction is GRANTED; and it is 

ORDERED that Defendant United Airlines, Inc. is hereby enjoined from terminating any 

employee for failing to receive a vaccine for COVID-19 if that employee has requested an 

accommodation for religious or medical reasons and United Airlines, Inc. granted the 

accommodation of unpaid leave;

ORDERED that Defendant United Airlines, Inc. is hereby enjoined from placing any 

employee on unpaid leave if that employee requested an accommodation for religious or medical 

reasons from United Airlines, Inc.’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate;

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 5-1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID 44
ORDERED that Defendant United Airlines, Inc. is hereby enjoined from denying any 

request for a religious or medical accommodation from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate due to 

timeliness (i.e., because it was submitted after August 31, 2021); 

SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 5-1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID 45
Case 2:22-cr-00030-Z-BR Document 106 Filed 09/21/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 246
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Hyperdynamics Corporation
(Hyperdynamics), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Sarah Berel-Harrop,
Chief Financial Officer of Hyperdynamics, does hereby certify, pursuant to 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to her
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.





Date:
February 17, 2009





By:
                    /s/ Sarah Berel-HarropSarah
      Berel-HarropChief
      Financial OfficerPrincipal
      Accounting
Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2

                         AEROSOL SERVICES COMPANY, INC.
                         FIXED CHARGE RATIO COMPUTATION
                                (GUARANTORS ONLY)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                            ---------------------------------------
                                                              1997           1998            1999
                                                            --------       --------        --------
                                                                     (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
<S>                                                         <C>            <C>             <C>
Income before taxes .................................       $    322       $     (5)       $     11
Fixed charges reflected in income (loss) before taxes
   Interest expense .................................          2,946          2,662              (2)
   One third of rental expenses .....................            336            339             358
                                                            --------       --------        --------
Total fixed charges .................................       $  3,282       $  3,001        $    356
                                                            ========       ========        ========


Income (loss) before taxes plus fixed charges above .       $  3,604       $  2,996        $    367
                                                            ========       ========        ========
Fixed charge ratio ..................................          1.10x          1.00x           1.03x
</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.6








ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference
is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2015, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE
SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special
Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodianand
WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-NXS1
(the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.



Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement,
I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from April
1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period
has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has
fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed
this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.





Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

















Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A.
Motion for Rehearing Granted, Memorandum Opinion filed July 9, 2013, 

Withdrawn, Appeal Reinstated, and Order filed August 15, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00089-CV

____________

WALTER DAVIDSON AND WILLIAM MURRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

D/B/A ALL WORXS AND AMTEL COMMUNICATIONS, Appellants

V.

TEL WEST NETWORK SERVICES CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-61790

ORDER

On July 9, 2013, this Court issued an opinion dismissing this appeal. On 

July 24, 2013, appellant filed a motion for rehearing. The motion is granted. 
This Court’s opinion filed July 9, 2013, is withdrawn, and our judgment of 

that date is vacated. The appeal is ordered reinstated.

PER CURIAM
#### SCHMUCK et ux. v. MAYFIELD, Constable, et al.

No. 11422.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

June 7, 1944.

Rehearing Denied July 12, 1944.

R. M. Bounds, of McAllen, for appellants.

L. J. Polk, of Pharr, for appellees.

NORVELL, Justice.

Appellants, R. M. Schmuck and wife, Mina H. Schmuck, brought this suit against appellees, T. S. Mayfield, Constable of Precinct No. 8, Hidalgo County, Texas, and Security State Bank of San Juan, Texas, seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the constable and the bank from selling under writ of execution, certain real property described as the South twenty acres of Lot No. 120 of the Kelly-Pharr Subdivision of lands in Porciones 69 and 70, Hidalgo County, Texas. The bank claims under a judgment rendered in its favor and against R. M. Schmuck, for the principal sum of $5,389.32. Appellants asserted that the property constituted their homestead.

The case was tried to a jury, but at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence the court instructed the jury to find for appellees, and a judgment that appellants take nothing was rendered.

Two witnesses testified upon the trial below. The testimony of appellant R. M. Schmuck is briefly summarized as follows:

Witness is sixty-eight years of age and has been married forty-three years. In 1929, he purchased the property involved, with the intention of making a home thereon. He now owns no other real estate within the State of Texas and has continually maintained his intention to make his home upon the tract here involved. Schmuck and his wife, however, never lived upon the tract and never erected any buildings thereon. At one time Schmuck did discuss the matter of building a house with a contractor named Harry Bersett. Certain plans were tentatively formulated, but no actual construction was undertaken, except that a proposed driveway was built “up a little bit.” This driveway is not in good condition now, although parts of it can still be seen.

At the time of Schmuck’s purchase, the land was set to young citrus trees. These have been brought to maturity, Certain *725canal banks were leveled and the arable acreage of the tract increased. Schmuck and wife have lived within the City of Mc-Allen ever since they purchased the tract of land involved. At one time they owned a house in McAllen and lived therein. The house was lost through foreclosure proceedings.

The witness Harry Bersett testified that in the fall of 1938 he had some conversation with Schmuck about building a house upon the tract of land here involved.

The evidence was insufficient to take the case to the jury. Under the authorities, the trial court correctly instructed the jury to find for appellees. Article 16, § 51 of the Constitution of Texas, Vernon’s Ann, St., Franklin v. Coffee, 18 Tex. 413, 70 Am.Dec. 292; Gilmore v. Dennison, 131 Tex. 398, 115 S.W.2d 902; West End Town Co. v. Grigg, 93 Tex. 451, 56 S.W. 49; Sproulle v. McFarland, Tex.Civ.App., 56 S.W. 693; Guajardo v. Emery, Tex.Civ.App., 73 S.W.2d 615, error refused.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1149

JOAN H. BRAITSCH,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EMC CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

THOMAS AARON; MICHAEL GRILLI; FRANK KEANEY,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief

District Judge. (CA-94-1693-A)

Submitted: January 11, 2000 Decided: March 20, 2000

Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Whitney Adams, McLean, Virginia, Theodore B. Olson, Thomas G.

Hungar, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for

Appellant. Richard L. Swick, SWICK & SHAPIRO, P.C., Washington,

D.C., for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant EMC Corporation, the prevailing party in a civil

rights action brought by Appellee Joan H. Braitsch, appeals the

district court’s refusal to award attorney’s fees. This is the

second time this issue has come before us. In EMC’s previous appeal, we noted an ambiguity in the record concerning the district

court’s rationale for denying fees, and we therefore remanded for

further proceedings. See Braitsch v. EMC Corp., No. 97-1467, 1997

WL 787125 (4th Cir. Dec. 24, 1997) (unpublished).

The district court has now clarified its reasons for denying

fees. We have reviewed the court’s opinion and find no abuse of

discretion. See DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499, 510 (4th Cir.

1999) (noting that whether to grant or deny fees is a matter for

the district court’s discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order declining to award attorney’s fees. Furthermore, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process, we grant Braitsch’s motion for summary

affirmance and deny EMC’s request for oral argument.

AFFIRMED
Case 3:22-cr-00160-B Document 24 Filed 11/01/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 38
Case 4:22-cv-00262-P   Document 6   Filed 04/06/22    Page 1 of 3   PageID 48Case 4:22-cv-00262-P   Document 6   Filed 04/06/22    Page 1 of 3   PageID 48

Case 4:22-cv-00262-P   Document 6   Filed 04/06/22    Page 2 of 3   PageID 49Case 4:22-cv-00262-P   Document 6   Filed 04/06/22    Page 2 of 3   PageID 49

Case 4:22-cv-00262-P   Document 6   Filed 04/06/22    Page 3 of 3   PageID 50Case 4:22-cv-00262-P   Document 6   Filed 04/06/22    Page 3 of 3   PageID 50
Appeal Reinstated and Order filed December 2, 2021 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00028-CR

____________

MARCUS DEWAYNE NICKERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18-01753-CRF-85

ORDER

This appeal was abated pending disposition of appellant’s related appeal in 

cause number 10-18-00380-CR in the Tenth Court of Appeals. Appellant’s appeal 

in case number 10-18-00158-CR was denied on February 17, 2021. On September 

22, 2021, the Court of Criminal Appeals denied Appellant’s Petition for 

Discretionary Review. Mandate in case number 10-18-00380-CR issued on 

November 15, 2021.

The appeal is reinstated. The State’s brief is due thirty days from the date of 

this order.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Poissant.
#### SHACKLEY v. STATE.

No. 25119.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 24, 1951.

None on appeal, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

Appellant was charged with the sale of whisky in a dry area. He pleaded guilty before the court, having waived a trial by jury. The court found him guilty and assessed his punishment at a fine of $100. The record before the Court contains neither a bill of exception nor statement of facts. The proceedings appear to be regular and no question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
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

          - [Project No. 11541-000 Idaho] 

A telephone conference will be convened by staff of the Office of Energy Projects on December 6, 2000, at 1 p.m. eastern standard time. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the operation of the upstream fishway and the design of the downstream fish screen structure as suggested by the U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in their comments on the draft environmental assessment of the Atlanta project. Also, the meeting will clarify issues that need to be addressed in the Final Environmental Assessment.

                    Any person wishing to be included in the telephone conference should contact Gaylord W. Hoisington at (202) 219-2756 or e-mail at gaylord.hoisington@ferc.fed.us. Please notify Mr. Hoisington by November 30,                           ( print page 66979)                        2000, if you want to be included in the telephone conference.                

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-28633  Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M