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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability. 

# SUMMARY:

The USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, is transmitting the final boundary of the McKenzie National Wild and Scenic River to Congress.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randy Dunbar, Willamette National Forest, 211 East 6th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97440, phone 541-465-6541.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The McKenzie Wild and Scenic River boundary is available for review at the following offices: USDA Forest Service, Recreation, Yates Building, 14th and Independence Avenues SW., Washington, DC 20024; Pacific Northwest Regional Office, 333 SW. First Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204; and, Willamette National Forest, 211 East 6th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97440.

The Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic River Act (Public Act 100-557) of October 28, 1988, designated the McKenzie River, Oregon, as a National Wild and Scenic River, to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. The final decision on delineation of a river corridor boundary is based on the McKenzie Wild and Scenic River Decision Notice and Environmental Assessment dated January 9, 1992. Unless changed by Congress, the boundary decision will be implemented ninety days after Congress receives the transmittal.

Dated: November 28, 2000.

Nancy Graybeal,

Deputy Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 00-30753 Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          11,392
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,086
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,050
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     28,252
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           4,503
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             4,415
<LOANS>                                        165,700
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,690
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 229,351
<DEPOSITS>                                     212,035
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                843
<LONG-TERM>                                        429
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,184
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 229,351
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,126
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  977
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   334
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,437
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,610
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,628
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,809
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      180
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    971
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         611
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       611
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.78
<LOANS-NON>                                        552
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,550
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     (51)
<RECOVERIES>                                        11
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,690
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,690
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### EMERSON v. STATE.

No. 15795.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 5, 1933.

T. B. Bartlett and J. C. Patterson, both of Marlin, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for murder; punishment, seven years in the penitentiary.

There seems no question of the sufficiency of the facts. We think the learned trial judge to be commended for the careful conservation of the rights of the appellant shown by this record. When the case was called for trial, it was made to appear that there was a serious question as to the mental ability of the accused to aid, advise with, and assist his counsel in the trial. The trial court postponed the hearing for six weeks. When the case was again called for trial, it was again presented to the court that the mind of appellant had not sufficiently cleared up to enable him to sanely take an appropriate part in his trial. Thereupon the court directed an inquiry at the hands of a jury properly conducted for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not from the facts, in the judgment of a jury, the accused was of sound mind and able to proceed with his trial. The affidavit of insanity was made by a brother of appellant. The result of this investigation was a verdict of the jury that appellant was sane. Thereupon the case was called for trial, a trial was had, and a verdict of guilty returned.

 We find in the record but one bill of exception which complains generally of the fact that the appellant was not mentally or physically able to defend himself properly, and of a refusal to continue the case for this reason. It appears that the application for continuance upon this ground was made after the investigation had before the jury of appellant’s mental condition, and after the verdict of the jury had been returned finding him of sound mind. The application for continuance sets out the various steps taken by the court in regard to the matter, as we have above substantially outlined. We find nothing in the application, or in support thereof, indicating that by a postponement of the case, or a continuance thereof, there would have likely been a betterment in the condition of the accused. We are of opinion the trial court was within his discretion in declining a further continuance. The state filed an affidavit denying that appellant was of unsound mind, and asserting that he was physically and mentally able to participate in his trial. Examining the court’s charge in connection with the other parts of the record, we find nothing to lead us to conclude that upon the trial of this case any plea of insanity was interposed. Under the merciful provisions of our statute one cannot be tried while in a condition of insanity, but in order to avail himself of any supposed error in putting him on trial while in such condition, there would have to be a plea interposed upon which an issue might be formed and a jury decision had. We find no ground for any exception to the court’s charge.

Believing no error appears in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 237 (Friday, December 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77061-77062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31300]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice of Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance 
Lebanon Municipal Airport, West Lebanon, NH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comments. Notice of intent of waiver with 
respect to land.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal that a portion of airport 
property (approximately 2.06 acres located on the South side of the 
Terminal Road) is no longer needed for aeronautical use, as shown on 
the Airport Layout Plan. There appear to be no impacts to the airport 
by allowing the disposal of the property. The land was acquired under 
FAA Project No. 9-27-006-6002 (portion of Parcel No. 7) on September 2, 
1960.
    In accordance with section 47107(h) of title 49, United States 
Code, this notice is required to be published in the Federal Register 
thirty (30) days before modifying the land-use assurance which requires 
that the property be used for an aeronautical purpose. The purpose of 
the release of land will provide the abutting developer more 
flexibility in construction of his facility by allowing the set-back 
lines to be closer to Airport Road.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna R. Witte, Airports Division, 12 
New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803. Telephone 
No. 781-238-7624/Fax 781-238-7608. Documents reflecting the proposed 
FAA action may be reviewed in person at 16 New England Executive Park, 
Burlington, Massachusetts or at the Lebanon Municipal Airport, West 
Lebanon, New Hampshire.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA in 
considering the release of the subject airport property at Lebanon 
Municipal Airport, West Lebanon, New Hampshire. The disposition of 
proceeds from the disposal of airport property will be in accordance 
with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, 
published in the Federal Register on February 16, 1999.

[[Page 77062]]

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on November 28, 2000.
Vincent A. Scarano,
Manager, Airports Division, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 00-31300 Filed 12-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```
OPEN PLAN SYSTEMS, INC.

          EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                             Three Months Ended                      Nine Months Ended
                                                                September 30                           September 30
                                                          1998                1997               1998                1997
                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                <C>                  <C>                 <C>                 <C>  
Weighted average shares outstanding during the
   period                                                    4,673               4,472              4,550               4,472

Assumed exercise of options less assumed                         -                   1                  -                   1
   acquisition of shares
                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                        4,673               4,473              4,550               4,473
                                                   ===============================================================================


Net earnings (loss) used in computation            $           240      $          147      $      (4,196)      $        (143)
                                                   ===============================================================================

Earnings (loss) per common share                   $           .05      $          .03      $        (.92)      $        (.03)
                                                   ===============================================================================
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          46,838
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,068
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,722
<INVENTORY>                                     15,474
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,069
<PP&E>                                          29,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,021
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,479
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       108,862
<OTHER-SE>                                    (30,547)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,471
<SALES>                                         27,431
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,431
<CGS>                                           12,759
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,759
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,106
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  19
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    113
<INCOME-TAX>                                       863
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (750)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (750)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
### Request for Information 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) Dear Ms. Neubecker: This letter is in regards to the petitions yo u have submitted on behalf of the following: Powers Flight Group (D ocket No. FAA–2016–4932) Wolfpack Services (Docket No. FAA ­ 2016 ­ 7844) Brewster Fresh Produce (Docket No. FAA­ 2016 ­ 4931) Hastings Consulting (Docket No. FAA ­ 2016 ­ 7702) Prater’s Midwest Dive Services (Docket No. FAA ­ 2016 ­ 4933) Skyweb Digital media LLC (Docket No. 2016 ­ 5397) The petitions state the petitioners will operate the HSE ­ UAV AGV6A+V2 UAS. With full payload, this unmanned aircraft (UA) has a maximum take ­ off weight of 75.24 lbs. If th e petitioner’s intent is to operate this UA above the weight of 55 lbs the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires the additional information not addressed in the HSE manual to process your petition.

x A detailed description of the aircraft design and configur ation for the HSE ­ UAV AGV6A+V2 UAS focusing on the UAS features and flight ch aracteristics to include, but not limited to: o Detailed 3 view drawings with scale of the aircraft and any launch and recovery equipment if applicable o Operational history with suppo rting statistics; particularly where HSE was the principal operator o Results of analysis and flight testing of UAS o Lessons learned from repairs and alterations performed dur ing operations to include design changes and fixes dueto operational failure(s) o Details of any injuries or property dama ge resulting from f light/ground operations o Safety analysis of any failure modes such as lost link, fly ­ away, loss of control, etc. x Copies of manuals, photographs, videos/t elemetry may be provided as support x Any other information to support an analysis of operational safety with unmanned aircraft in excess of 55 pounds. Please submit the addi tional information (non ­ proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information is submitte d, please save your tracking number and submit your tracking number along with the information submitted tothe docket, and any proprietary information electronically via e ­ mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 11/29/2016 . If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket withou t notifying you further. FAA Office of Rulemaking Sent : T uesday, November 15, 2016 10:24 AM To: Kelly Neubecke r [kellyneubecker@gmail.com] Page 1 of 1 Request for Information

11 / 15 /201 6 https://email.dot.gov/owa/9 -AWA -AV S -333Exemptions@faa.gov/? ae=Item&t=IPM.Not...
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS OF INCOME, BALANCE SHEETS AND
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      64,039,529
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    9,954,631
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         12,758,540
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       370,328
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 1,648,737
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,948,560
<COMMON>                                       922,676
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      9,980,455
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            35,481,581
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 45,433,972
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,445,600
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           36,768,767
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             7,318,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  1,222,453
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 17,761,768
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  109,948,560
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      11,778,410
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           607,400
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     9,585,414
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     10,192,814
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        1,585,596
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             61,154
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 1,524,442
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       617,988
<NET-INCOME>                                   890,191
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    16,263
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  890,191
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       557,247
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         3,371,554
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.15
        


</TABLE>
#### GONZALES v. STATE.

No. 20253.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 22, 1939.

John H. Duhig, L. D. Harris, and Ed'ward J. Wilson, all of Houston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is robbery by assault; the punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of fifteen years.

Appellant takes the position that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction of the offense of robbery by assault. He insists that the evidence only shows theft from the person. After a careful review of the testimony, we are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to show that appellant committed the offense of robbery by assault.

Mr. Weiss, the assaulted party, testified that he was living at the Rio Hotel on September 3, 1938. That about eleven A. M. on said date, he started .up the stairway to go to his room. That when he had gotten about halfway up, appellant grabbed him, threw him down,- and took a pocketbook containing $65 out of his pocket'and ran out of the hotel. Thát he followed appellant and called to others to catch him.

Mr. McNeeley testified that a short time before twelve o’clock he was near the Rio Hotel. That he looked through a screen door and saw two persons inside of the hotel scuffling. That appellant came out running, with Weiss closely following him and calling upon the people to catch him. ’ That he, the witness, took part in the chase, overtook appellant and held him until a policeman arrived and took him into custody. All of the money was recovered.

The distinguishing element between theft from the person and robbery by as*493sault is the antecedent assault. We think the evidence is sufficient to show an asr sault at the time the money was taken by appellant from the person of Weiss.

Appellant caught hold of Weiss, who was over sixty years of age, shoved him down, took his money and fled. Here we have the assault, an attack sufficient to overcome resistance of the assaulted party, and as a result of which appellant obtained the money. We think the facts in the case are sufficient to show robbery by assault. In support of our position we refer to the cases of Anderson v. State, 132 Tex.Cr. 255, 103 S.W.2d 753; Alsobrook v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 322, 115 S.W.2d 668; Bryant v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 385, 55 S.W.2d 1037.

Having reached the conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.