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

          - 47 CFR Part 73 
          - (DA 00-2713, MM Docket No. 94-29, RM-8416) 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Final rule: petition for reconsideration. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document denies the petition for reconsideration filed by Marysville Radio, Inc. and Roseville Radio, Inc., of our                         *Report and Order*, 60 FR 55332 (October 31, 1995) which substituted Channel 288B1 for Channel 288A and reallotted Channel 288B1 from Willows to Dunnigan, California and modified the license for Station KIQS-FM accordingly. The Commission determined that a new engineering study can not be relied upon and that the                         *Report and Order*                        properly compared the existing and proposed arrrangement of allotments under the FM Priorities. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arthur D. Scrutchins, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket No. 94-29, adopted November 22, 2000 and released December 1, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), at its headquarters, 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 

The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036. 

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos, 

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 00-31398 Filed 12-8-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

36 37 38 39 40 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/09 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
NO. 12-19-00312-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:

MICHAEL A. KENNEDY, 

RELATOR

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Michael A. Kennedy, an inmate acting pro se, filed this original proceeding to challenge 

action/inaction by Officer A. Stephenson with the grievance office of the Polunsky Unit.

Each court of appeals or a justice of a court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus and 

all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§ 22.221(a) (West Supp. 2017). A court of appeals may issue writs of mandamus against: (1) a 

judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals 

district; (2) a judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under 

Chapter 52, Code of Criminal Procedure, in the court of appeals district; or (3) an associate judge 

of a district or county court appointed by a judge under Chapter 201, Family Code, in the court of 

appeals district for the judge who appointed the associate judge. Id. § 22.221(b).

Stephenson does not qualify as a judge under Section 22.221(b); thus, we lack jurisdiction

to issue a writ of mandamus against the officer unless the writ is necessary to enforce our

jurisdiction. See In re Bledsoe, 532 S.W.3d 826, 827 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, orig. 

proceeding) (mandamus jurisdiction did not extend to other parties outside of Section 22.221(b), 

such as prison warden); see also In re Roberson, No. 13-15-00598-CV, 2015 WL 9285850, at *2 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 21, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (dismissing mandamus 

proceeding for lack of jurisdiction over executive director of Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice, and assistant and senior wardens). Relator does not have an appeal pending in this Court 
2

and he has not explained how the issuance of a writ against Stephenson is otherwise necessary to

enforce this Court’s jurisdiction. Thus, we have no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief with 

respect to Stephenson.

Because we lack jurisdiction over Relator’s complaints against Stephenson, we dismiss

Relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered September 18, 2019.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)
3

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 18, 2019

NO. 12-19-00312-CV

MICHAEL A. KENNEDY,

Relator

V.

OFFICER A. STEPHENSON,

Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by 

Michael A. Kennedy; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-19-312-CV. Said petition 

for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on September 16, 2019, and the same having been 

duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that it lacks jurisdiction, it is therefore 

CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and 

the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73998-73999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29946]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9525-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.). An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA regulations are listed 
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Westlund (202) 566-1682, or email 
at westlund.rick@epa.gov and please refer to the appropriate EPA 
Information Collection Request (ICR) Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests

OMB Approvals

    EPA ICR Number 1613.04; Data Reporting Requirements for State and 
Local Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs 
(Renewal); 40 CFR part 51 subpart S; was approved on 11/02/2012; OMB 
Number 2060-0252; expires on 11/30/2015; Approved without change.
    EPA ICR Number 1292.09; Enforcement Policy Regarding the Sale and 
Use of Aftermarket Catalytic Converters (Renewal); was approved on 11/
05/2012; OMB Number 2060-0135; expires on 11/30/2015; Approved without 
change.
    EPA ICR Number 0575.13; Health and Safety Data Reporting; 
Submission of Lists and Copies of Health and Safety Studies; 40 CFR 
part 716; was approved on 11/21/2012; OMB Number 2070-0004; expires on 
11/30/2015; Approved with change.

Short Term Extension of Expiration Date

    EPA ICR Number 2288.05; Pesticides Data Call In Program; a short 
term extension of the expiration date was granted by OMB on 11/21/2012; 
OMB

[[Page 73999]]

Number 2070-0174; expires on 12/31/2012.

John Moses,
Director, Collections Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-29946 Filed 12-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The 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. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 26, 2005

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT MARKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

MARILYN SCAFE; KANSAS

PAROLE BOARD; PHILL KLINE,

Attorney General of Kansas,

Respondents - Appellees.

.

No. 04-3333

(D.C. No. 03-CV-3029-GTV)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HENRY , BRISCOE , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Robert Marks appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court granted Mr. Marks a

certificate of appealability on the question of whether his trial counsel was

ineffective for not challenging the circumstances under which officers searched

Mr. Marks’ truck. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253 and affirm. 

As stated by the district court, this case is governed by the provisions of the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Pub.L. No. 104-132,

110 Stat. 1214 (1996). See Penry v. Johnson , 532 U.S. 782, 792 (2001). The

Kansas state courts adjudicated Mr. Marks’ claim on its merits, so, under AEDPA,

we may only grant a writ of habeas corpus if the decision (1) “was contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or (2) “was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the

State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). “When applying these

deferential AEDPA standards, we review the district court’s legal analysis of the

state court decision de novo.” Saiz v. Ortiz , 392 F.3d 1166, 1176 (10th Cir. 2004) 

(quotation omitted). “[W]e focus on the result of the state court decision, not its

reasoning.” Id.

Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, the district court record, the state
-3-

court record, and the applicable law, we cannot conclude that the decision of the

Kansas Court of Appeals was contrary to or an unreasonable application of

Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s

order dated July 28, 2004.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

_____________________

No. 11-70031

_____________________

RAMIRO RUBI IBARRA,

 Petitioner - Appellant

v.

WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

 Respondent - Appellee

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

__________________________

Before JONES, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Treating the Appellant’s motion for en banc rehearing as a motion for

panel rehearing, and given the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trevino v.

Thaler,133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013), the court GRANTS the motion for rehearing in

part.1 We hereby VACATE our prior panel decision only to the extent

inconsistent with Trevino and grant a COA only to that extent; in all other

respects, the majority and dissenting opinions remain in effect. In light of

this new authority, we VACATE the district court’s order to the extent

inconsistent with Trevino and REMAND to the district court for proceedings

consistent herewith. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

1 The effect of this ruling is to moot the Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

 Case: 11-70031 Document: 00512313024 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2013
No. 11-70031

GRAVES, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trevino v. Thaler,

133 S.Ct. 1191 (2013), requires us to vacate our prior decision, grant Ibarra’s

certificate of appealability (COA), and remand to the district court for the

appropriate application of Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012).2 The trial

court should, in the first instance, be allowed to apply Martinez in accordance

with Trevino. See Cantu v. Thaler, 682 F.3d 1053 (5th Cir. 2012)

However, I disagree with the majority’s inclusion of the language that

“in all other respects, the majority and dissenting opinions remain in effect.” 

The inclusion of this language is an unwarranted and unnecessary potential

limiter on the consideration of Ibarra’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial

counsel with regard to issues on which the majority previously denied his

COA. Ibarra is clearly not foreclosed from raising his ineffective assistance of

counsel claims on these issues. Simply put, the trial court is free to

determine whether or not evidence related to these issues is relevant to any

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and is likewise free to determine if

any ineffective assistance affects the merits of these issues or any procedural

default. Id. Thus, I disagree with any language which may be construed to

the contrary.

2 This is entirely consistent with my previous separate opinions in this case wherein I

disagreed with the panel majority’s rejection of the application of Martinez. See Ibarra v.

Thaler, 687 F.3d 222 (2012) (Graves, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and Ibarra

v. Thaler, 691 F.3d 677 (2012) (Graves, J., dissenting).

2

 Case: 11-70031 Document: 00512313024 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2013
Exhibit 31.2
 Chief Financial Officers Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)
          (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control
over financial reporting.
 Date: May 22, 2008

/s/ Steven P. EnszSteven P. EnszVice President, Finance
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: APPOINTMENTS TO CRIMINAL 

PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 485

CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL RULES 

DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3

rd day of February, 2017, William R. Carroll, Esquire, Somerset 

County, and Aaron J. Marcus, Esquire, Philadelphia, are hereby appointed as members 

of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee for a term of three years commencing 

March 1, 2017.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          21,278
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,073,164
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,055)
<INVENTORY>                                    914,675
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,012,643
<PP&E>                                       3,950,679
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,099,982)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,791,704
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,679,419
<BONDS>                                      1,045,444
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,002,098
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,791,704
<SALES>                                      4,831,804
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,842,671
<CGS>                                        4,714,261
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,760,107
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   691
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (2,679)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,953
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 60,599
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,422
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,177
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,177
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
Schedule 2.1 to the Directors' Deferred Compensation & Benefits Trust Agreement



 Exhibit 10.5 
 Schedule 2.1 
 to the 
 Directors’ Deferred Compensation and Benefits 
 Trust Agreement

 Benefit Plans and Other Arrangements Subject to Trust 
 (1) Sunoco, Inc. Directors' Deferred Compensation Plan I; 
 (2) Sunoco, Inc. Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan II; 
 (3) The entire funding for all the
Indemnification Agreements with the directors set forth below shall be Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) in the aggregate upon a Potential Change in Control, and an amount upon a Change in Control calculated on the basis of the Indemnification
Agreements with the following directors: 
  

	 	(a)	Robert J. Darnall 

  

	 	(b)	John G. Drosdick 

  

	 	(c)	Gary W. Edwards 

  

	 	(d)	Ursula O. Fairbairn 

  

	 	(e)	Thomas P. Gerrity 

  

	 	(f)	Rosemarie B. Greco 

  

	 	(g)	John P. Jones, III 

  

	 	(h)	James G. Kaiser 

  

	 	(i)	R. Anderson Pew 

  

	 	(j)	G. Jackson Ratcliffe 

  

	 	(k)	John W. Rowe 

  

	 	(l)	John K. Wulff 

 (4) Benefits payable to former directors
of the Company (or their beneficiaries) in pay status as of the date of termination of the Sunoco, Inc. Non-Employee Directors' Retirement Plan.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gregory E. Hare, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Guardian Technologies International, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date: August 31, 2006

Signed:

/s/Gregory E. Hare

Name: Gregory E. Hare

Title: Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at December 31, 1997 and the Statement of Operations for
the Year Ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,887
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,334
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,221
<PP&E>                                       1,315,352
<DEPRECIATION>                                 677,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 682,573
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               98
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     682,475
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   682,573
<SALES>                                        334,355
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               335,791
<CGS>                                          139,240
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  139,240
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               103,114
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 93,437
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             93,437
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    93,437
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    52.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    52.48
        

</TABLE>