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 the Interior

###### Fish and Wildlife Service 

# AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice, extension of comment period. 

# SUMMARY:

                        We are extending the comment period on the                         **Federal Register**                         notice dated October 17, 2000 (65 FR 61356) that invites the public to comment on our draft ecological integrity policy.                     

# DATES:

Submit comments on or before December 15, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

                        Send comments concerning this draft ecological integrity policy via mail, fax or email to: Elizabeth Souheaver, Chief, Branch of Wildlife Resources, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 670, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax (703— 358-2248; email:                         *ecointegrity _policy_ comments @fws.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Souheaver, Chief, Branch of Wildlife Resources, (703) 358-1744. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In a                     **Federal Register**                     notice dated October 17, 2000, we published our draft ecological integrity policy. We propose to establish an internal policy to guide personnel of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) in implementing the clause of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 that calls for maintaining the “biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health” of the System. The holistic integration of these three qualities constitutes ecological integrity.                 

We received several requests to extend the public comment period beyond the December 1, 2000 due date. In order to ensure that the public has an adequate opportunity to review and comment on our draft policy, we are extending the comment period to December 15, 2000. 

Dated: November 29, 2000. 

Jamie Rappaport Clark, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 00-30781 Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
#### William Harwood WHITEHEAD, Who Sues In His Own Right and by His Mother and Next Friend, and Guardian ad Litem, Lina Robinson Whitehead, Appellant, v. William E. LOTT, Appellee.

No. 4576.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Jan. 31, 1940.

T. C. Gordon, Jr., and Robert G. Butcher, both of Richmond, Va., and Leigh D. Williams,' of Norfolk,. Va., for appellant

W. R. Ashburn and I. W. Jacobs, both of Norfolk, Va., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Case entered dismissed under Rule 23 in accordance with agreement of counsel.
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. RP00-617-001]

      ( print page 75687)    
Take notice that on November 21, 2000, Gulf States Transmission Corporation (Gulf States), tendered for filing FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, with an effective date of November 1, 2000:

Substitute Original Sheet No. 58T

Gulf States states that the tendered sheets are filed in compliance with the Commission's October 27, 2000 Order in the referenced dockets, regarding the netting and trading of imbalances on Gulf States' system.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 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 apropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. 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. 00-30744  Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1733 

To require the Secretary of Transportation to revise regulations relating 

to oversold flights to prohibit the forcible removal of passengers from 

such flights, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 3, 2017 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself, Mr. CARPER, and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Transportation to revise regulations relating to oversold flights to prohibit the forcible 

removal of passengers from such flights, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Customers Not Cargo 

5 Act of 2017’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1733 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FORCIBLE REMOVAL OF PAS2 SENGERS FROM OVERSOLD FLIGHTS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

4 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Trans5 portation shall revise the regulations under part 250 of 

6 title 14, Code of Federal Regulations— 

7 (1) to prohibit an air carrier from forcibly re8 moving a passenger from an aircraft after boarding 

9 because the air carrier oversold the flight or to pro10 vide a passenger seat to an employee of the air car11 rier; 

12 (2) to establish standards for resolving 

13 oversales once an aircraft has been boarded through 

14 the provision of escalating incentives to passengers 

15 to encourage voluntary rebooking; and 

16 (3) to require an air carrier, to the extent prac17 ticable, to resolve issues related to overselling a 

18 flight before boarding the flight. 

19 (b) EXCEPTIONS.—In revising the regulations as re20 quired by subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider pro21 viding for exceptions to those regulations for— 

22 (1) a medical emergency; or 

23 (2) a circumstance that poses a threat to the 

24 safety of the flight. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pedro Rivera, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Carey, J.), rendered on May 10, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years on the burglary count and one year on the remaining counts, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s conviction was supported by legally sufficient evidence. The evidence indicated that defendant entered a commercial van and removed a suitcase. A witness notified her husband, who followed defendant for approximately three blocks. The police arrived shortly and discovered defendant searching the suitcase beneath the exterior staircase of a residential building. The owner of the van indicated that the vehicle was broken into and that defendant did not have permission or authority to remove the suitcase. The jury was entitled to reject the defense theory that his possession was innocent and that he picked up the suitcase on the street near the van. Further, any doubt as to identity was dispelled by defendant’s statement placing him at the scene. In this regard, any error which arose from the failure to instruct the jury that questioning regarding a prior out-of-court statement of defendant could be considered only to impeach the testimony of a witness *(see,*CPL 60.35; *People v Saez,*69 NY2d 802) must be considered harmless.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
#### Yechiel Lebovits, Respondent, v PSFB Associates et al., Defendants, and Pine Shade Builders, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Levine, J.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Weiner, J.), entered September 28, 1989 in Rockland County, which, *inter alia,*directed defendant Nachman Eagle to appear for an examination before trial.

During the discovery phase of this action, defendants Pine Shade Builders, Inc. and Nachman Eagle (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) made a motion to hold a nonparty witness in contempt for failure to testify at an examination before trial (hereinafter EBT) in accordance with a subpoena. In response to defendants’ motion, the nonparty witness cross-moved to quash the subpoena and plaintiffs counsel submitted an affirmation stating that plaintiff too wished to examine the nonparty witness, but urging that examination of the parties, particularly Eagle, should be completed first. Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion and the nonparty witness’s cross motion and, *inter alia,*ordered the witness to submit to an EBT on October 31, 1989. The court then amended its order *sua sponte,*directing Eagle to appear for an EBT on October 17, 1989. This appeal by defendants ensued.

Defendants’ sole contention on appeal is that Supreme Court improperly amended its order to direct an EBT of Eagle in the absence of a cross motion by plaintiff. We agree. While the affidavit submitted by plaintiffs counsel suggests that the EBT of the nonparty witness should await completion of Eagle’s EBT, plaintiff served no notice of cross motion demanding that an examination of Eagle be scheduled and, indeed, no such relief was even requested in his counsel’s affirmation *(see,*CPLR 2215). Thus, Supreme Court had no basis for directing Eagle to appear for an EBT *(see, Nagle v New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Assn.,*68 AD2d 905; *786
      *see also, Anderson Props. v Sawhill Tubular Div.,*149 AD2d 950; *Guggenheim v Guggenheim,*109 AD2d 1012, 1012-1013).

Order modified, on the law, without costs, by deleting so much thereof as directed defendant Nachman Eagle to appear at an examination before trial, and, as so modified, affirmed. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.2


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


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Titanium  Metals  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly  Report"),
I, Mark A. Wallace, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly  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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial   condition  and  result  of
          operations of the Company



/s/ Mark A. Wallace_______
--------------------------
Mark A. Wallace
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2002
#### BRAND v. BRAND.

No. 12354.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

April 23, 1938.

James D. O’Connor, of Dallas, for appellant.

Baskett & Parks, of Dallas, for appellee.

BOND, Chief Justice.

. The. records here presented show this case originated in a justice court of Dallas county, tried anew in a county court, and appealed to this court.. Neither the judgment of the justice court, nor the appeal bond, or affidavit in lieu thereof, necessary to confer jurisdiction on the county court, show in the record.

. In cases originating in a justice court and reaching the Court of Civil Appeals through an appeal to the county court, the record must show that a final judgment was rendered by the justice of the peace, and that an appeal was taken to the county court, properly perfected. Grand Rapids Show Case Co. v. Richardson, Tex.Civ.App., 277 S.W. 803; Simpson v. Alexander & Wofford, Tex.Civ.App., 149 S.W. 748. This court may not presume that the cause was properly appealed to the county court.

Therefore, the record failing to show that the county court had jurisdiction of the cause, this court has none. It is fundamental ; the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00494-CR

Tyler Namon Payne

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 396th District Court

of Tarrant County (1251720D)

August 8, 2013

Opinion by Justice Gardner

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _________________________________

 Justice Anne Gardner
Thu Jul 16 09:34:48 EDT 2015 Yuhas.Darlene@epamail.epa.gov FW: EPA Proposed Renewable Fuel Standards 2014, 2015, 2016 To: CMS.OEX@epamail.epa.gov; Gaines.Cynthia@epamail.epa.gov

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Vanessa Bayless [mailto:commissioners@co.lawrence.pa.us] Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 9:12 AM To: Mccarthy, Gina; dmcdonough@who.eop.gov; bdeese@who.eop.gov Cc: rjw.inc@comcast.net; 'Dan Vogler' Subject: EPA Proposed Renewable Fuel Standards 2014, 2015, 2016

Good Morning: Please find attached a letter from Lawrence County Commissioner Dan Vogler regarding the EPA proposed Renewal Fuel Standards for 2014, 2015, 2016. Upon review, if you have any questions, please give us a call. Thank you.



# Vanessa Bayless

Administrative Assistant Lawrence County Commissioners' Office Lawrence County Government Center
430 Court Street New Castle, PA 16101
724.656.2120 Phone
724.652.9646 Fax commissioners@co.lawrence.pa.us www.co.lawrence.pa.us

From: officecopier@co.lawrence.pa.us [ mailto:officecopier@co.lawrence.pa.us ] Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 4:45 AM To: commissioners@co.lawrence.pa.us Subject: Message from KMBT_363 Commissioners
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.7

               AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO FLORIDA CHOICE BANKSHARES, INC.
                   OFFICERS' AND EMPLOYEES' STOCK OPTION PLAN

      THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE FLORIDA CHOICE BANKSHARES, INC. OFFICERS' AND
EMPLOYEES' STOCK OPTION PLAN (the "Amendment") is made as of the 25th day of
April, 2005.

                                 WITNESSETH THAT:

      WHEREAS, Florida Choice Bankshares, Inc. (the "Company") has an Officers'
and Employees' Stock Option Plan, as amended (the "Plan"), which the Company
assumed in connection with its acquisition of Florida Choice Bank; and

      WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects.

      NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

      1. Defined Terms. All terms used in this Amendment which are defined in
the Plan shall have the meanings specified in the Plan, unless specifically
defined herein.

      2. Amendment of Section 4.1. Section 4.1 of the Plan shall be amended to
provide that, subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.3 of
the Plan, the number of shares of Stock which may be issued and sold under the
Plan pursuant to Stock Option Agreements shall not exceed Two Hundred Fifty Six
Thousand One Hundred Twenty-Four (256,124) shares.

      3. Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment,
the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly
executed by its officer thereunto duly authorized, all as of the date first
above written.

                                  FLORIDA CHOICE BANKSHARES, INC.

                                  By: /s/ Kenneth E. LaRoe
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Kenneth E. LaRoe
                                      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-39,597-13

EX PARTE MANUEL LUPE RIOS, JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W90-54752-U(C) IN THE 291ST DISTRICT COURT

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

robbery and sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Rios v. State, No. 05-96-01074-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, pet. dism’d). 

We received this application on May 7, 2014. Page six from the 11.07 form, the page for

Applicant’s first ground, was not forwarded with the record. We have no reason to doubt that when

he mailed his application to Dallas County, Applicant included page six. Indeed, the State’s
2

response and the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law both state that Applicant raised

actual innocence in his first ground.

The District Clerk’s failure to forward complete records to this Court is not new. We have

even remanded habeas applications for live evidentiary hearings in response to the District Clerk’s

practices and policies. Yet the District Clerk, Gary Fitzsimmons, continues to forward incomplete 1

records. For example, we recently remanded Applicant’s -12 application, a companion case, and

ordered Fitzsimmons to file a response and explain why Applicant’s memorandum was not

forwarded with the record. Fitzsimmons responded that Applicant filed a memorandum with his

application, but the memorandum, he said, “was not labeled with the correct case number(s).” He

also said that he eventually located Applicant’s memorandum under the felony cause number, not

the writ number. 

We are not persuaded by Fitzsimmons’s explanation. Applicant filed a memorandum with

the -13 application, and although he put the cause number from the judgment on the first page of his

memorandum, his memorandum wasforwarded with that record. We also question why a document

titled, “Memorandum in support of application for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” with the cause number

from the underlying judgment, would not be received and filed as part of the habeas record. 

Fitzsimmons shall forward page six from Applicant’s 11.07 form within fifteen days of the

date of this order. This application will be held in abeyance until the record is supplemented. No

extensions will be granted. 

Filed: September 17, 2014

Do not publish

Ex parte Watson, No. WR-75,170-03 (Tex. Crim. App. May 22, 2013); Ex parte Subia,

1

Nos. WR-79,511-01 & 79,511-02 (Tex. Crim. App. May 22, 2103); Ex parte Rogers, No. WR62,774-02 (Tex. Crim. App. May 22, 2013).
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

      In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of IVP  Technology  Corporation
d.b.a.  ActiveCore  Technologies,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  each of the  undersigned  herby  certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of the Company, that:

      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: September 20, 2004            By:    /s/ Peter J. Hamilton
                                           -------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Peter J. Hamilton
                                    Title: 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  IVP  Technology
Corporation  d.b.a.  ActiveCore  Technologies,  Inc. and will be retained by IVP
Technology Corporation d.b.a. ActiveCore Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.