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. RP99-220-006]

Take notice that on October 31, 2000, Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) filed for disclosure, a transportation service agreement pursuant to Great Lakes' Rate Schedule FT entered into by Great Lakes and CXY Energy Marketing (U.S.A.) Inc. (CXY) (FT Service Agreement). The FT Service Agreement being filed reflects a negotiated rate arrangement between Great Lakes and CXY commencing November 1, 2000.

Great Lakes states that the FT Service Agreement is being filed to implement a negotiated rate contract as required by both Great Lakes' negotiated rate tariff provisions and the Commission's Statement of Policy on Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines and Regulation of Negotiated Transportation Services of Natural Gas Pipelines, issued January 31, 1996, at Docket Nos. RM95-6-000 and RM96-7-000.

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. 00-28934  Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 35.1





SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT





I, Steven C. McNeal, Vice President and Treasurer of Entergy New Orleans, LLC (the “Servicer”), certify that:





(a) A review of the Servicer's activities during the reporting period covered by this Report on Form 10-K and of its performance under that certain Storm Recovery Property Servicing Agreement dated as of July 22, 2015 between Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding I, L.L.C., as the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer (the “Servicing Agreement”) has been made under my supervision.





(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.





Date: March 28, 2019





Entergy New Orleans, LLC, as servicer





By:  /s/ Steven C. McNeal


Name:  Steven C. McNeal


Title:  Vice President and Treasurer
Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

VS, § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-156-K (01)

§

JESUS ALEXANDER PEREZ FUENTES §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry 

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation 

Concerning Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections 

thereto having been filed within fourteen days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it 

is hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty and 

Plea Agreement and the Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty. Sentence will be imposed 

in accordance with the Court’s scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Signed October 26th, 2022.

_____________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00156-K Document 34 Filed 10/26/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 73
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

IN RE THE PETITION OF 

KAITLIN CROWELL 

PR 23-0004 F1LFD 

APR 18 2023 

Bowen G t,ef 'Wood 

Cletx of Supreme Court 

Stota of ..,Annta rin 

ORDER 

Kaitlin Crowell has petitioned this Court for admission to active status in the State 

Bar of Montana after having been on inactive status since April 2022. 

IT IS ORDERED that upon payment of the appropriate fees to the State Bar of 

Montana, Petitioner shall be admitted to the active practice of law in the state of Montana. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this / 14/4 day of April, 2023. 

For the Court. 

ChiefJustice 

04/18/2023

Case Number: PR 23-0004
#### HODGES v. STATE.

No. 24325.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 30, 1949.

, No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the'State.'1/

' DAVIDSON,'Judge.'

Aggravated assault is the offense; tlie punishment, a fine of $50. '

The record is before ús without a statement of’facts, or bills-of exception. Nothing is-pres'ented'for review. '

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commis*sion of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Adam Benzel, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Erie County,

April 28, 1958.

*Maurice Lutwack*for appellant.

*John F. Dwyer, District Attorney (Robert A. Burrell*of counsel), for respondent.

*964Matthew J. Jasen, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Buffalo convicting appellant of unlawfully refusing, on October 22, 1957, to surrender his license plates and his operator’s license to a police officer, acting on order of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, following a suspension by said commissioner of the appellant’s registration and operator’s license pursuant to the provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in violation of subdivision 6 of section 71 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

Appellant raises two points on appeal. He claims that the original notice of suspension mailed to him by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles was dated February 11, 1954, and that the offense having been committed then, its prosecution is now barred because of the two-year Statute of Limitations for misdemeanor prosecutions. The summons and information commencing this proceeding were dated October 22, 1957 and October 29, 1957, respectively.

This contention is without merit. More than one criminal offense is set out in subdivision 6 of section 71 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. *“*Failure of the holder * * * to deliver the [license card, registration certificate or number plates] to the suspending * * * officer ” is a misdemeanor. However, ‘*'*Failure of the holder * * * to deliver the [license card, registration certificate or number plates] to any peace officer directed by the commissioner to secure possession thereof ’ ’ following a suspension of the same, is also a misdemeanor.

Appellant is charged only with a violation of the last-mentioned provision. The information alleges, and the proof shows that the offense took place on October 22, 1957, the very day that the summons was issued, and only one week before the information was filed.

It is "also claimed that no hearing was held prior to the suspension of the registration and license, and that it therefore was illegal. The action of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles in suspending the registration and license cannot be reviewed in this proceeding. Appellant had an appropriate means of review in Supreme Court. Even if this was the proper forum, the action of the commissioner was in accordance with law, and no hearing was required. *(Matter of Heart*v. *Fletcher,*184 Misc. 659.)

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28873]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting; Agency Meeting

     Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of 
November 13, 2000.
    An open meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 at 10 
a.m. in Room 6600.
    The subject matter of the open meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 
November 15, 2000 will be:
    The Commission will consider adopting rule amendments to its 
auditor independence requirements. The rule amendments are intended to 
modernize the Commission's regulations regarding:
    (1) Investments by auditors and members of their families;
    (2) Auditors' employment relationship; and
    (3) The scope of services provided by audit firms to their audit 
clients.
    In addition, the rules would require companies to disclose in their 
annual proxy statements certain information about non-audit services 
provided by their auditors during the last fiscal year.
    For further information, contact: John Morrissey, or Sam Burke, 
Office of the Chief Accountant at (202) 942-4400.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: November 6, 2000.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28873 Filed 11-6-00; 4:28 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
#### J. W. ROBERTS v. STATE.

No. 24657.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 18, 1950.

No appearance, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated ; punishment. assessed at a fine of $50.

Appellant has filed his affidavit advising this court that he desires to have his appeal' dismissed, and upon his request a dismissal of said appeal is so ordered.
EXHIBIT 32.1








STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. EDWARDS,


INTERIM PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF BORDERS GROUP, INC.


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


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











I, Michael J. Edwards, certify that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 1, 2010, of Borders Group, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Borders Group, Inc.




















Date: May 27, 2010





/s/ Michael J. Edwards


Michael J. Edwards


Interim President and Chief Executive Officer


Borders Group, Inc.
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

IN THE LTNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KEVIN KTARI WEST,

Petitioner.

TRACY HOLMES,

Respondent Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-0953-C-BN

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Cou( that Petitioner's habeas application should be

dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner's right to fully and properly exhaust his state remedies.r

The Court has reviewed the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for clear error

and finds none. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated

therein, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner's habeas application be DISMISSED without

prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

oatedvay 1l ,zozz.

C INGS

toR ITED STATE

IPetitioner has failed to file objections to the United States Magistra

Conclusions, and Recommendation and the time to do so has now expired.

S

S D TzuCT JUDGE

udge's Findings,

,.lz4zrz-t

I

Case 3:22-cv-00953-C-BN Document 7 Filed 05/31/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 22
#### TEXAS EMPLOYERS INS. ASS’N v. KNIPE.

No. A-2989.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 16, 1951.

Rehearing Denied June 20, 1951.

McMahon, Springer, Smart & Walter and Stanley P. Wilson, all of Abilene, for petitioner.

Scarborough, Yates, Scarborough & Black and Larry Scarborough, all of Abilene, for respondent.

GRIFFIN, Justice.

In this case the sole question presented is whether or not the respondent, Max Knipe,. was injured in the course of his employment.

A trial was had in the trial court before a jury, which answered all issues favorably to respondent, who was the plaintiff. The petitioner moved for judgment non obstante veredicto, and this motion was granted upon the theory that there was no evidence to sustain the jury’s finding that the plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment. Upon appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals at Eastland, that court reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment for the plaintiff, respondent herein, upon the jury’s verdict. 234 S.W.2d 274. We granted writ of error-

**If there is any evidence to support the findings of the jury, we must affirm the Court of Civil Appeals judgment. We have carefully studied the statement of facts, and, in our opinion, there is evidence in the record to support the jury’s findings. There are some conflicts in the evidence, but it is not in the province of this court to resolve such conflicts. That duty rests upon the jury trying the case. This they did by finding for respondent. There being evidence to support such findings, we have no power to disturb same.

We have studied the authorities cited by the parties and the Court of Civil Appeals, and we find they support the Court of Civil Appeals opinion.

The Court of Civil Appeals in its opinion, found in 234 S.W.2d 274, has correctly disposed of this cause; therefore, there is nothing to be gained by further discussion of this case.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is approved and that judgment is in all things affirmed.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-00200-L

§

TERRY GLENN EVANS §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent 

of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, 

and no objections thereto having been filed within fourteen days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the 

undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning the 

Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and 

TERRY GLENN EVANS is hereby adjudged guilty of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), namely, Possession of a Firearm 

by a Convicted Felon. Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

☒ The defendant is ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The Court accepts the findings of the United States Magistrate Judge by clear and convincing evidence that the 

defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released and should therefore 

be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ Upon motion, this matter shall be set for hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions 

of release for determination, by clear and convincing evidence, of whether the defendant is likely to flee or pose a 

danger to any other person or the community if released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The defendant is not ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) pending determination of whether it has 

been clearly shown that there are exceptional circumstances under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be 

detained under § 3143(a)(2), and whether it has been shown by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is 

not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released under § 3142(b) or (c). This 

matter shall be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions of release.

SIGNED this 29th day of November, 2023.

________________________________________

SAM A. LINDSAY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00200-L Document 40 Filed 11/29/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 70
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29010]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will consider two additional agenda items during 
the open meeting on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. 
Additionally, notice is hereby given that this meeting will be held in 
Room 1C30, the William O. Douglas Room, not Room 6600 as previously 
announced.
    The subject matters of the additional agenda items will be:
    (1) The Commission will consider adopting two rules that would 
require greater disclosure of order execution and order routing 
practices by market centers and brokers.
    For further information, contact: Susie Cho, Division of Market 
Regulation at (202) 942-0748; and
    (2) Consideration will be given to adopting rules regarding the 
quotation obligations of options exchanges and market makers, and 
disclosure by broker-dealers of executions of customer options orders 
at prices inferior to the best available quote.
    For further information contact: Heather Traeger, Division of 
Market Regulation at (202) 942-0763.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alternations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: November 7, 2000.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29010 Filed 11-7-00; 4:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Dallas Division

ROBERT HOPKINS, III, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. * Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00706 (E)

*

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, *

*

Defendant. *

*

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

ORDER

UPON CONSIDERATION OF Plaintiff’s Corrected Partially Unopposed 

Motion to Stay Briefing of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and for Summary 

Judgment, any Opposition thereto, and the entire record herein, it is this _______ 

day of __________, 2024, 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED; and

FURTHER ORDERED that briefing of Defendant’s Motion is hereby 

stayed until further notice.

________________________

ADA BROWN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 37-1 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 914
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 4/25/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES TIMOTHY KLING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

G. GREG VALDEZ, Individually and in

his official capacity as Third Judicial

District Attorney; RAMON ACOSTA,

Individually and in his capacity as an

employee of the Third Judicial District

Attorney,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-2131

(D.C. No. CIV 94-618-M)

(D.N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, McKAY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Kling appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of DefendantsAppellees on his civil rights and state law claims in connection with his termination as an

investigator. Although he was ordered reinstated and awarded back pay in a state post-
- 2 -

termination proceeding, he contends that qualified immunity for the Defendants was

improper and that his First Amendment claim alleging termination due to political activity

should have gone forward. Our review of these legal issues is de novo.

Mr. Kling cannot assert a constitutional right for deprivation of substantive or

procedural due process under our precedent given the remedies afforded him. See

Workman v. Jordan, 32 F.3d 475, 479 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1357

(1995); Archuleta v. Colorado Dep’t of Institutions, 936 F.2d 483, 489-90 (10th Cir.

1991). Therefore, qualified immunity was properly granted. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500

U.S. 226, 232-33 (1991). While we may agree that a state post-deprivation remedy does

not necessarily foreclose a First Amendment retaliation claim, cf. Williams v. St. Louis

County, 812 F.2d 1079, 1081 n.3 (8th Cir. 1987), it is unlikely that the complaint

envisioned an independent First Amendment claim. Be that as it may, Plaintiff’s response

to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was wholly inadequate to preclude

summary judgment on such a claim, consisting of references to allegations contained in

the complaint. See III R. doc. 40 at 3-6. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). Plaintiff was required to come forth with

evidence; Defendants were not required to negate the allegations. See Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court
- 3 -

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge