alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6301

STARLING THORTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

WINSTON LLOYD,

Plaintiff,

versus

STATE OF MARYLAND; RONALD MOATS, Warden;

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, RICHARD

LANHAM, Commissioner of Corrections,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-95-

3990-MJG)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Starling Thorton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Thorton v. Maryland, No. CA-95-3990-MJG (D. Md. Feb. 1,

1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25238]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Agency Information Collection

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), 
Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice and Request for Comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) today gives notice of a request 
for public comment, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on 
the continued collection of information entitled: Budget Justification, 
which DOE has developed for submission to and approval by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the 
continued collection of such budget justification information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the 
accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed 
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology 
and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize 
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including 
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.

DATES: Comments regarding this continued information collection must be 
received on or before December 27, 2014. If you anticipate difficulty 
in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in 
ADDRESSES as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office, 15013 Denver 
West Parkway, Golden, CO 80401-3111, Attn: James Cash.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions may be directed to James 
Cash at (720) 356-1456 or by email at james.cash@ee.doe.gov. The 
information collection instrument, entitled Budget Justification, may 
also be viewed at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/financing/resources.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This information collection request 
contains:
    (1) OMB No. 1910-5162, Budget Justification;
    (2) Information Collection Request Title: Budget Justification;
    (3) Type of Request: Renewal;
    (4) Purpose: This collection of information is necessary in order 
for DOE to identify allowable, allocable, and reasonable recipient 
project costs eligible for Grants and Cooperative Agreements under EERE 
programs;
    (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 400;
    (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 400;
    (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 24 hours, per 
response;
    (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: 
$899.04 per one time response.

     Authority: 10 CFR 600.112.

    Issued in Golden, CO on October 17, 2014.
James Cash,
Contracting Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-25238 Filed 10-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
#### LAMB v. STATE.

No. 17031.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 21, 1934.

R. C. Winters, of Abilene, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for robbery; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for twenty-five years.

A plea of not guilty was entered.

The evidence heard on the trial is not before this court. No irregularity in the proceedings has been perceived or pointed out in the record which would warrant a reversal of the judgment.

The sentence is not properly worded. It should read that “the said Sonny Lamb, alias Carl Taylor, be confined in the State Penitentiary of the State of Texas for an indeterminate period of not less than five nor more than twenty-five years.” The sentence is therefore reformed to embrace the language quoted.

As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78904-78905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22077]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--UHD Alliance

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 8, 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''), UHD Alliance, Inc. (``UHD 
Alliance'') 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, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Burbank, CA, has been 
added as a party to this venture.
    Also, Portrait Displays, Inc., Pleasanton, CA, has withdrawn as a 
party 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 UHD Alliance intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

[[Page 78905]]

    On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance 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 July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42537).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 6, 2024. 
A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) 
of the Act on June 21, 2024 (89 FR 52094).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2024-22077 Filed 9-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
#### NATIONAL FIRE INS. CO. v. PFEIFER et al.

No. 9078.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 17, 1933.

Rehearing Denied June 21, 1933.

R. A. Dunkelberg, of Brownsville, and Thompson, Knight, Baker & Harris, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.

B. N. Goodrich and H. B. Galbraith, both of Brownsville, for defendants in error.

FLY, Chief Justice.

The suit was for insurance on a Chevrolet automobile alleged to have been stolen from defendant in error by a negro named Hackett. The court rendered a judgment in favor of defendant in error, who will be identified as plaintiff, against plaintiff in error, which will be identified as the insurance company herein.

On the trial of the case no evidence of the value of the automobile was introduced, and when this point was made in á motion for new trial by defendant the court said he would hear evidence as to the value of the automobile, no decree having been entered in the case except the entry of the judge on his docket. The parties then agreed that, if an absent witness were present, he would swear that the automobile was worth $400. The court then rendered judgment for $365 in favor of plaintiff. However irregular the proceeding may have been, it could not have injured the insurance company, which, did not claim that it could controvert the evidence of value. The judgment was for less than the amount of insurance named in the policy.

The car was returned to plaintiff on his initiative by Hackett, and was placed where plaintiff told Hackett to deliver it. Plaintiff afterwards went to the place where Hackett was told ‘to. place the car and found the car there. It disappeared afterwards, and it was shown that Hackett retook the car and carried it to a distant county. Plaintiff never regained possession of it. Hackett made two small payments on the car, but no more, and returned it, because, as he said, he could not pay for it. He did not demand repayment of the sums he had paid. It seems rather farfetched for the insurance company to be resisting the performance of its contract with plaintiff on the ground that he had not complied with the terms of the contract with Hackett.

The evidence fails to show that the automobile was left in the possession of Hackett after the contract had been canceled by Mm and the plaintiff had possession of it. He ordered the automobile to be delivered at a certain location, and it was delivered there; and afterwards plaintiff went to the spot and found the car where he had ordered it to be placed.' It was in plaintiff’s possession at that time. Had the car been stolen by some third person, and had plaintiff sought to recover the value of the car from Hackett, it is clear he could not have recovered, because it had been delivered to him and was in his possession.

The judgment is affirmed.
**EIS_Identifier Lead (tons)**  **State County**  **Site Name**

9364511 0.220NH Merrimack Concord Muni 9369211 0.180NH Hillsborough Boire Field 8178911 0.120NH Merrimack PSNH - MERRIMACK STATION 11253811 0.110NH Rockingham HAMPTON AIRFIELD 9370211 0.110NH Cheshire Dillant-Hopkins 9370511 0.110NH Belknap Laconia Muni 9368211 0.088NH Grafton Lebanon Muni 9364311 0.072 NH Rockingham Pease International Tra 9362411 0.047 NH Strafford Skyhaven 9370111 0.033 NH Coos Berlin Muni 9362211 0.029 NH Sullivan Claremont Muni 7853911 0.026NH Sullivan SPRINGFIELD POWER LLC 7458011 0.025 NH Merrimack WATTS REGULATOR CO DBA WEBSTER VALVE 7758611 0.025 NH Grafton BRIDGEWATER POWER COMPANY 9370011 0.019 NH Coos Mount Washington Region 9370311 0.018NH Cheshire Jaffrey Airport-Silver 11886111 0.013 NH Grafton DEAN MEMORIAL 11206711 0.013 NH Carroll MOULTONBORO 11492111 0.013 NH Grafton FRANCONIA 7866911 0.010NH Coos DG WHITEFIELD LLC 7456811 0.010NH Merrimack CONCORD STEAM CORPORATION 9369111 0.010NH Hillsborough Manchester

Data source: EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory Database: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html. Sources of lead > 0.01 tons/year.**Facility Type City** 

Airport Concord Airport Nashua Electricity Generation via Combustion BOW Airport HAMPTON Airport Keene Airport Laconia Airport Lebanon Airport Portsmouth Airport Rochester Airport Berlin Airport Claremont Electricity Generation via Combustion SPRINGFIELD Franklin Electricity Generation via Combustion BRIDGEWATER Airport Whitefield Airport Jaffrey Airport HAVERHILL Airport MOULTONBORO Airport FRANCONIA Electricity Generation via Combustion WHITEFIELD Steam/Heating Facility CONCORD Airport Manchester

Data source: EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory Database: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html. Sources of lead > 0.01 tons/year.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Colonial Properties Trust, the
general partner of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership, hereby certifies that,
to his knowledge on the date hereof:

      (a)   the Form 10-Q of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership for the period
            ended March 31, 2005 filed on the date hereof with the Securities
            and Exchange Commission (the "Report) fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934; and

      (b)   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
            respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
            Colonial Realty Limited Partnership.

                                             /s/ Thomas H. Lowder
                                             --------------------
                                                 Thomas H. Lowder
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 May 9, 2005

                                       31
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3070 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3070

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to permit striped bass fishing 
in the Exclusive Economic Zone transit zone between Montauk, New York, 
        and Point Judith, Rhode Island, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``EEZ Transit Zone Clarification and 
Access Act''.

SEC. 2. RECREATIONAL FISHING IN BLOCK ISLAND SOUND TRANSIT ZONE.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with 
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, may issue regulations 
to permit and regulate recreational Atlantic striped bass fishing in 
the Block Island Sound Transit Zone.
    (b) Block Island Sound Transit Zone Defined.--In this section the 
term ``Block Island Sound transit zone'' means the area of the 
exclusive economic zone north of a line connecting Montauk Light, 
Montauk Point, New York, and Block Island Southeast Light, Block 
Island, Rhode Island; and west of a line connecting Point Judith Light, 
Point Judith, Rhode Island, and Block Island Southeast Light, Block 
Island, Rhode Island.
    (c) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section or the regulations 
issued under this section shall affect--
            (1) any permit that--
                    (A) is issued under any other provision of law by 
                the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
                including a permit issued before the date of the 
                enactment of this Act; and
                    (B) authorizes fishing in the Block Island Sound 
                Transit Zone; or
            (2) any activity authorized by such a permit.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 7, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3070

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to permit striped bass fishing 
in the Exclusive Economic Zone transit zone between Montauk, New York, 
        and Point Judith, Rhode Island, and for other purposes.
```
EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Jean-Pierre Vandromme, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Golden Telecom, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by the report based on such evaluation;and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 16, 2007/s/ JEAN-PIERRE VANDROMMEJean-Pierre Vandromme
##### Table of Contents



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 FORM
8-K/A
 (Amendment
No. 1)
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report
March 2, 2007(Date of earliest event reported)
 Torch Energy Royalty Trust
 (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 Delaware
    
    1-1247
    
    74-6411424(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
    
    (Commission File Number)
    
    (I.R.S. Employer
Identification Number)
 Rodney Square North
1100 North Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19890  (Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)
 302/636-6016  (Registrants telephone number, including area code)
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Explanatory Note:Item 7.01. Regulation FD DisclosureItem 9.01. Financial Statements and ExhibitsSIGNATUREExhibit IndexPress Release 
 Explanatory Note:
  
 Item 7.01.
 Regulation FD Disclosure
   
 Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits




---



##### Table of Contents



TORCH ENERGY ROYALTY TRUSTBy:
    
    Wilmington Trust Company, not in its
individual capacity but solely as Trustee for
the TrustDate: March 7, 2007
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Bruce L. BissonBruce L. BissonVice President(The Trust has no employees, directors or executive officers.)




---



##### Table of Contents



Exhibit
    

Description99.1
    
    Torch Energy Royalty Trust Press Release dated March 2, 2007.
#### Marvin HEADRICKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 20840.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 13, 1939.

Joe J. Newman, of Trinity, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for assault with intent to murder, punishment assessed being two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant has filed his affidavit advising this court that he does not further desire to prosecute his appeal, and at his request the same is dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2119

WANDA SIRKO, Individually and as Personal Representative of 

the Estate of John Andrews, Deceased,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TOWN COUNCIL OF CENTREVILLE,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

DANIEL JAY SAVAGE,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:09-cv-00552-JFM)

Submitted: May 27, 2011 Decided: June 3, 2011

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel H. Paavola, PAAVOLA AND PAAVOLA PA, Annapolis, Maryland, 

for Appellant. Steven R. Migdal, BUCK, MIGDAL & MYERS,

CHARTERED, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wanda Sirko appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Town 

Council of Centreville, on the underlying wrongful death action. 

Sirko’s complaint alleged that the Town of Centreville was 

responsible for the death of her father, who was killed in an 

automobile accident by a driver eluding a police chase. We have 

reviewed the record on appeal as well as the parties’ briefs and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Sirko v. Town Council of 

Centreville, No. 1:09-cv-00552-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 2, 2010). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED