alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 193 (Friday, October 4, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22449]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Veterans Rural Health Advisory Committee, Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10., that the Veterans 
Rural Health Advisory Committee will hold its face-to-face meeting at 
the American Legion Build, 1608 K St. NW, Washington, DC 20006 on 
Thursday, October 24, 2024. The meeting will convene at 8:00 a.m., 
Eastern Standard Time (EST) and adjourn at 5:30 p.m. EST. The meeting 
sessions are open to the public. Additionally, a meeting link is 
available for individuals who cannot attend in person and would like to 
join online. The meeting can be accessed through the https://veteransaffairs.webex.com/veteransaffairs/j.php?MTID=m362183abee8a40616be272e42b86ac9b or by telephone, +1-404-
397-1596, Conference ID 2820 022 4291.
    The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of VA on 
rural health care issues affecting Veterans. The Committee examines 
programs and policies that impact the delivery of VA rural health care 
to Veterans and discusses ways to improve and enhance VA access to 
rural health care services for Veterans.
    The agenda will include updates from Department leadership; the 
Executive Director, VA Office of Rural Health; and the Committee Chair; 
as well as presentations by subject-matter experts on general rural 
health care access.
    Time will be allocated for receiving public comments on October 24, 
2024, at 5:00 p.m. EDT. Interested parties should contact Mr. Paul 
Boucher, by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bacadbcfd694d8d5cfd9d2dfc8faccdb94ddd5cc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ea9a8b9f86c488859f89828f98aa9c8bc48d859c">[email protected]</span></a>, at (207) 458-7129, or send by 
mail to 810 Vermont Avenue NW (12RH), ATTN: VRHAC Committee, 
Washington, DC 20420 no later than close of business on October 14, 
2024. Individuals wishing to speak are invited to submit a 1-2-page 
summary of their comment for inclusion in the official meeting record 
no later than close of business on October 14, 2024. Any member of the 
public seeking additional information should contact Mr. Boucher at the 
email address noted above or 207-458-7129.

    Dated: September 25, 2024.
LaTonya L. Small,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-22449 Filed 10-3-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 15

- 00428

- CR

Jessica Yvette GARANZUAY

, Appellant

v.

The

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 6, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 420081

Honorable Wayne A. Christian, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 9, 2015

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). We grant

the motion and dismiss this appeal. See id.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
EXHIBIT 31.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Matt Wayrynen, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Elko Ventures
     Inc..;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
21st day of December, 2007.


/s/ Matt Wayrynen
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 23.2
 
  
   Very truly yours,/s/ DeGolyer and MacNaughtonDeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
#### BRIDGES v. STATE.

No. 20980.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 10, 1940.

*1089G. DeGraffenreid, of Marshall, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was convicted for the offense of driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $100 and confinement in the county jail for thirty days.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing has been presented authorizing a reversal or requiring discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on July 1, 2024, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Defense Electronics Consortium (“DEC”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, BoldRF LLC, Boulder, CO; Denkai America, Inc., Camden, SC; Phoenix Semiconductor Corp., Austin, TX; and Wright Electric, Malta, NY, have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and DEC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On April 12, 2023, DEC filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on August 8, 2023 (88 FR 53520).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 9, 2024. A notice was published in the                     **Federal                               ( print page 78902)                            Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 28, 2024 (89 FR 54044).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2024-22056 Filed 9-25-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

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

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

 *** The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, U.S. District Court for the

Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDDIE MORALES,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-56003

D.C. No. 5:10-cv-00013-AGR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Alicia G. Rosenberg, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 10, 2013** 

Pasadena, California

Before: McKEOWN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BELL, District Judge.*** 

FILED

JAN 14 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Eddie Hernandez Morales appeals the district court’s order affirming the

administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of his request for a continuance. The ALJ

proceeded with a video hearing despite Morales’ absence because Morales’

attorney was present, and the ALJ deemed Morales a non-essential witness. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

The ALJ did not err in denying Morales’ request for a continuance. As an

initial matter, Morales failed to provide timely notice of his request to reschedule

the hearing. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1436(d) (agency must be notified about any

request to reschedule the hearing at the “earliest possible opportunity before the

time set for the hearing”). 

Additionally, the ALJ’s denial was proper pursuant to § 416.1436(f) and 

§ 416.1450(a), because the ALJ considered the fact that Morales’ counsel was

present at the hearing on Morales’ behalf, and that Morales’ frequent incarcerations

made rescheduling likely to result in further delays. See § 416.1436(f) (“In

determining whether good cause exists . . . the [ALJ] will consider . . . the impact

of the proposed change on the efficient administration of the hearing process. 

Factors affecting the impact of the change include . . .delays which might occur in

rescheduling your hearing”); see also § 416.1450(a) (“[a] party may also make his

or her appearance by means of a designated representative”). The ALJ did not err
3

by deeming Morales a non-essential witness because the administrative record

contained statements from Morales concerning his claimed disability, and Morales

has not shown that his testimony at a continued hearing was necessary.

Finally, Morales asserts that we have jurisdiction to hear his due process

claim. This claim has been waived, however, because Morales failed to raise it

before the district court, and failed to articulate it in his opening brief. See, e.g., In

re Rains, 428 F.3d 893, 902 (9th Cir. 2005); Hibbs v. Dep’t of Human Res., 273

F.3d 844, 873 n.34 (9th Cir. 2001). 

AFFIRMED.
78840 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

risks, including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

EPA did not perform an EJ analysis 

and did not consider EJ in this action. 

Due to the nature of the action being 

taken here, this action is expected to 

have a neutral to positive impact on the 

air quality of the affected area. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of 

achieving environmental justice for 

communities with EJ concerns. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: September 18, 2024. 

Debra Shore, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21895 Filed 9–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[GN Docket No. 20–32; FCC 24–89; FRS 

246488] 

Petitions for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding; Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document makes an 

editorial correction to the date in a 

citation that appeared in the Federal 

Register on September 17, 2024. That 

Federal Register document, which 

invited comment on the 5G Fund 

Second Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, incorrectly listed the date 

on which a summary of the 

Commission’s 2023 5G Fund Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was 

published in Federal Register as 

September 28, 2024. The correct date is 

September 28, 2023. 

DATES: The corrections are effective 

September 26, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Valerie Barrish, Office of Economics and 

Analytics, Auctions Division, (202) 418– 

0660, or Valerie.Barrish@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document makes an editorial correction 

in a citation that appeared in the 

summary of the 5G Second Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

published at 89 FR 76016 on September 

17, 2024, which incorrectly listed 

incorrectly listed the date on which a 

summary of the Commission’s 2023 5G 

Fund Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking was published in Federal 

Register as September 28, 2024, rather 

than September 28, 2023. 

In FR Doc. 2024–20979 appearing on 

page 76016 in the Federal Register of 

Tuesday, September 16, 2024, the 

following correction is made: 

1. On page 76017, in the first column,

in the Synopsis in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION, in paragraph number 2., 

the date ‘‘(Sept. 28, 2024)’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘(Sept. 28, 2023)’’. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21968 Filed 9–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3062 

To prohibit the use of eminent domain in carrying out certain projects. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2015 

Mr. WOMACK (for himself, Mr. HILL, Mr. CRAWFORD, and Mr. WESTERMAN) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of eminent domain in carrying out 

certain projects. 

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 ‘‘Assuring Private Prop5 erty Rights Over Vast Access to Land Act’’ or the ‘‘AP6 PROVAL Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN FOR CERTAIN 

8 PROJECTS. 

9 Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 

10 U.S.C. 16421) is amended— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3062 IH

1 (1) by redesignating subsections (d) through (g) 

2 as subsections (f) through (i), respectively; and 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(d) PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN.—Notwith6 standing any other provision of law (including regula7 tions), the Secretary, SWPA, and WAPA may not carry 

8 out any Project under this section through the use of emi9 nent domain, unless the use of eminent domain is explic10 itly authorized by— 

11 ‘‘(1) the Governor and the head of each applica12 ble public utility commission or public service com13 mission of the affected State; and 

14 ‘‘(2) the head of the governing body of each In15 dian tribe the land of which would be affected. 

16 ‘‘(e) SITING REQUIREMENT.—To the maximum ex17 tent practicable, a Project carried out under this section 

18 shall be sited on— 

19 ‘‘(1) an existing Federal right-of-way; or 

20 ‘‘(2) Federal land managed by— 

21 ‘‘(A) the Bureau of Land Management; 

22 ‘‘(B) the Forest Service; 

23 ‘‘(C) the Bureau of Reclamation; or 

24 ‘‘(D) the Corps of Engineers.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 24

- 0261

_________________ CHRISTOPHER SHELTON, VICKY COSTA, AND TODD COSTA,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, an agency of the State of Montana, SU SAN RIDGEWAY, AXILON LAW GROUP, PLLC, PAUL S. HENNING, AARON J. DAVIES and DOES 1

- 20, Defendants and Appellees. O R D E R

_________________ This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellant’s opening brief filed on July 31, 2024, this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with the below

-referenced Rule and must be resubmitted. M. R. App. P. 10(7) requires the redaction of confidential personal information from documents filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, including the full birth dates of any person. The Court has determined that page 3 of Appellant’s opening brief lists the full birth date of L.S. T o comply with M. R. App. P. 10(7), Appellant must redact the full birth date. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the referenced brief is rejected. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order the Appellant shall electronically file with the Clerk of this Court a revised brief containing the revisions necessary to comply with the specified Rule and that Appellant shall serve copies of the revised brief and appendix on all parties of record; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no changes, additi ons, or deletions other than those 08/01/2024

Case Number: DA 24-02612

specified in this Order may be made to the brief as originally filed

. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the times for any subsequent briefing contained in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of the revised brief. The Clerk of this Court is directed to provide a true copy of this Order to the Appellant and to all parties of record

.

Electronically signed by: Beth Baker Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 1 2024
#### MUNOZ v. STATE.

No. 21049.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 10, 1940.

Edmundo Munoz, of El Paso, in pro. per.

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

*1090BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was convicted in the District Court of El Paso County for the theft of an automobile of the value of $70, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for four years.

In the absence of bills of exception in the record, the only question presented for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

The State’s witness, Johnny Brewington, testified that he was an employee of the A. B. Poe Motor Company of El Paso, Texas; that about the first of July, 1939, he purchased for the company a 1930 Chevrolet sedan from Manuel Escajedas, which car was parked in their used-car lot. The witness did not give appellant or anyone else permission to take the car.

J. D. Harrison, who was connected with the El Paso County Sheriff’s office, testified that he received a report of the car having been stolen. He located the automobile out on the Carlsbad Highway in the sand hills. When recovered, the wheels, horn, coil, head lights and tail lights were gone. From a check of the motor number, the witness determined that the car was that stolen from the A. B. Poe Motor Company.

Lev Gardner, a police officer of the city of El Paso, testified that he knew the appellant and had known him for about two and one-half or three years. About 1:40 o’clock in the afternoon, while on patrol duty, he saw the appellant working on an automobile parked at the curb at a certain place. Appellant was working on a tire of a Chrysler automobile, and as the officers passed, he jumped up and got in the back of the car. He picked up an old piece of bed-ticking and threw it over some stuff in the back end of the car. The officers drove “around the loop” and then returned to where the appellant was working on the car. Upon removing the bed-ticking in the car, the officers discovered the stolen articles. Appellant at first said the articles belonged to some other boys but later claimed that he had taken them off of a Model “A” Ford that was his. Appellant said he was going to get his hat and walked through the house and back to the alley, followed by the officers. Just as he entered the street heading west, he broke into a run. He was apprehended and placed under arrest. The officers then recovered from the appellant’s car the articles which had been taken from the Chevrolet.

J. J. Fuller, a detective on the El Paso police force, testified to having taken these automobile parts to the Chevrolet and putting them on it. The parts fitted exactly on the automobile.

The appellant did not testify upon the trial, but introduced several witnesses tending to prove an alibi. However, there is no explanation of the possession of the stolen property, which precludes the jury from concluding that appellant stole the car.

The case is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Yankee Holding Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
October 2, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harlan M. Kent, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Harlan M. Kent     
|Harlan M. Kent         
|Chief Executive Officer

November 12, 2010



39