alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,159
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,336
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,348,461
<DEPRECIATION>                                 101,640
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,459,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        668,904
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    150,000
<COMMON>                                           198
<OTHER-SE>                                     365,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,459,744
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,421
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,456
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,247
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,247
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,247
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.47
        

</TABLE>
|   | I, John K. Welch, certify that: |
|--------|---------------------------------|

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of USEC Inc.; and |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| April 30, 2013 | /s/ John K. Welch                     |
|----------------|---------------------------------------|
|           | John K. Welch                         |
|           | President and Chief Executive Officer |
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 86849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25302]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 31, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 24, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 530 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-152, K2025-150.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-25302 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: December 18, 2014

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket I d: OAR

– 2013

- 0602

FROM: EPA Region 1

SUBJECT: December 16, 2014
, Overview of Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

Supplemental Proposal at a New England Tribal Leaders Summit

**SUMMARY**

A New England Tribal Leaders Summit was held on December 16, 2014. During the Summit, Regina Lyons provided a brief overview of the propos ed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants in I ndian Country and U.S. Territories.

**ATTENDEES**

Tribal Leaders and Environmental Directors: Chairman Rodney

Butler, Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation Chief Brenda Commander, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Vice Chief Leslie Nicholas, Passamaquodd y Tribe: Indian Township Chief Fred Moore, Passamaquoddy Tribe: Pleasant Point Chief Kirk Francis, Penobscot Indian Nation Chairman Cedric Cromwell, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Vice Chairwoman Jessie Baird, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Chairman Tobias Vanderhoop, Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) Councilman Hiawatha Brown, Narragansett I ndian Tribe Councilman Normand Bernard, Aroostook Band of Micmacs Fred Corey , Aroostook Band of Micmacs Sharri Venno, Houlto n Band of Maliseet Indians Trevor White and Martin Dana, Passamaquodd y Tribe: Indian Township Marvin Cling, Passamaquoddy Tribe: Pleasant Point John Banks, Penobscot Indian Nation Quan Tobey

and Chuckie Green, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Bret Stearns, Wampanoa g Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) Dinaly n Spears, Narragansett I ndian Tribe Jean McI nnis, Mohegan Tribe Michael Boland, Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation

EPA: Jane Nishida Curt Spalding Deb SzaroKen Moraff

Rob Maxfield Sharon Wells Mike Ken yon Susan Studlie n Carl Dierker Tim Williamson Nancy Barmakian Lois Adams Andrew By

rne Mike Stover Dann y Rodriguez Regina Lyons Matt L iebman Deb Brown

Others: JoAnn Dunn, NAI COB Executive Director (Micmac) Cry stal Rizzo, NAI COB Youth Ed. Coordinator (S. Ute) Tory Govan, NAI COB (Mashpee) Jesse Scott, USDA

- Forest Service Phil Quint, Aroostook Band of Micmacs Craig Sandborn, Housing Authority Director, Aroostook Band of Micmacs Kathy Vandiver, MIT Cedric Woods, UMass
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: KAREN MICHELE ROZIER,

 Debtor,

KAREN MICHELE ROZIER,

 Appellant,

 v.

U.S. BANK N.A.,

 Appellee.

No. 13-60106

BAP No. 12-1359

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Kirscher, Pappas, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted: December 9, 2015** 

Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. 

Karen Michele Rozier appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s

FILED

DEC 16 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting U.S. Bank

N.A.’s motion for relief from stay with respect to certain real property. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and

apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s

ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th

Cir. 2009). We affirm.

U.S. Bank had standing to seek relief from the automatic stay with respect to

certain real property because U.S. Bank established that it had a colorable claim to

the property. See Arkison v. Griffin (In re Griffin), 719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir.

2013) (per curiam) (“[B]ecause final adjudication of the parties’ rights and

liabilities is yet to occur, a party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a

colorable claim to the property at issue.”); see also Mayfield v. United States, 599

F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Standing is a question of law that we review de

novo.”).

We reject Rozier’s contentions regarding the alleged bias of the bankruptcy

court judge and a member of the BAP.

Rozier’s request for judicial notice is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-60106
Number                          Floor Decor, Inc.                         Shares
                INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

COMMON VOTING STOCK            Cusip 339752 107          COMMON VOTING STOCK
                               PAR VALUE $0.01     FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE

THIS CERTIFIES THAT

IS THE REGISTERED HOLDER OF

SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF Floor Decor, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person
or by Attorney upon surrender of the Certificate properly endorsed.  Witness the
facsimile Seal of the Corporation and the facsimile Signatures of its duly
authorized officers.

                                                                Not Valid Unless
                                                     Initialed by Transfer Agent
                                                     Madison Stock Transfer Inc.
                                                                     P.O. Box 45
                                                            Brooklyn, N.Y. 11229

    Ed P. Kenny                Floor Decor, Inc.                 AJ Nassar
    President                  Corporate Seal                    Secretary
                                  Delaware
### Larry Greene

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

777 12 th Street, 3 rd Floor * Sacramento, CA 95814-1908 916/874-4800 * 916/874-4899 fax www.airquality.org May 18, 2009

Mr. Michael Guzzetta Stationary Source Division California Air Resources Board PO Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revision, SMAQMD Rule 464

Dear Mr. Guzzetta:

Enclosed is the information necessary for submittal of Rule 464, Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations, for revision to the State Implementation Plan. Rule 464 was amended on September 25, 2008. Please also forward the information for this submittal to U.S. EPA.

If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at (916) 874-4851.

Sincerely,

Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. Program Coordinator (sent via e-mail)

Attachments:

1. SIP Checklist Rule 464 2. Final Version of Rule 464 3. Underline/Strikeout Version of Rule 464 4. Public Notice Evidence 5. Resolution 6. Public Comments 7. Rule Evaluation Form 8. Board Memo 

### 9. Staff Report (includes responses to comments)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ORIN L. WADLINGTON, SR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 429 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of January, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
#### JOHN HOWELL et al. v. H. C. JONES et al.

*Appeal*— “ *Case ”*— Practice *in Supreme Court.*

1. It must appear in the record that an appeal was duly taken, otherwise it will be dismissed.

2. If the record shows an appeal, but there is no case on appeal settled (in those cases where such “ case ” is required), the appeal will not be dismissed, but the judgment below may he affirmed on motion . of appellee, if there are no errors in the record proper.

Appeal from StaNLY Superior Court.

*Mr. J. A. Lockhart,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Montgomery & Crowell*(by brief), for defendant.

Clark, J.:

There is no case on appeal settled by the Judge, nor signed by the parties, and nothing to show that any appeal was taken in open Court, nor any service of notice if appeal was taken out of Court. There is a “ case on appeal ” signed only by appellant’s counsel, but as it does not appear that it was served on .appellee within the required time, nor indeed at all, it must be treated as a nullity. *Peebles*v. *Braswell,*107 N. C., 68. The appeal would not be dismissed on this ground, as it may be there are errors on the face of the record proper, as want of jurisdiction, or complaint not stating a cause of action, and the proper motion and order would be to affirm the judgment. It further fails to appear, however, that an appeal was taken or notice of appeal given. In such case the appeal must be dismissed. *M’f’g. Co.*v. *Simmons,*97 N. C., 89. In this last case, it is said: “ It does not appear (in the record) that an appeal was taken. It does not so appear in terms, nor is there any entry of record from which it may be inferred. It is not sufficient that the appellant intended to appeal, as perhaps he did, but it must appear *103of record that he did in fact appeal. This is essential, to make the appeal effective, and put this Court in relation with the Superior Court. *The Code,*§§ 549, 550; *Moore*v. *Vanderburg,*90 N. C., *10; Spence*v. *Tapscott,*93 N. C., 250; *McCoy*v. *Lassiter,*94 N. C., 131; *Brooks*v. *Austin, Ibid,*222.”

Appeal dismissed.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Meyer Rosenberg, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

September 29, 1937.

*Morris Schussheim,*for the Yeshiva Rabbi Chiam Berlin, charitable legatee.

*Blum & Jolles,*for the Polish Consul, as representative of Gittel Filkovitch, legatee.

*Jacob N. Broudy,*for Gittel Goldberg, legatee.

Wingate, S.

Section 17 of the Decedent Estate Law provides in part that *“*the validity of a devise or bequest for more than such one-half may be contested only by a surviving husband, wife, child, descendent or parent.” The only intimation of potential infringement of the rule that more than one-half of an estate may not be given to charity over the protest of such near relative is contained in the petition of the executor who makes no intimation that he is writhin the class enumerated in the statute.

Two demonstrations are essential to produce a declaration of invalidity of the 'terms of a will under section 17. The first is that in fact more than one-half of the estate is given to charity. The second is that some one enumerated in the statute as being in the class of those entitled to object, actively contests the method of disposition. Such contest cannot be effected by a mental resolution to that effect, by the mere retaining of an attorney to *838enter a contest, where the attorney does nothing, or by any other act short of the filing of an actual written objection by or on behalf of the specified kin in the construction proceeding.

The fact that an attorney is retained in one proceeding in relation to an estate creates no inference that he is authorized to act in another, since each proceeding in the settlement of an estáte is as separate and distinct as are diverse actions between the same or different parties in any other court. *(Matter of Rosenberg,*157 Misc. 490, 495.)

It may be regrettable that the parties and their attorneys were unfamiliar with the law and the practice in Surrogates’ Courts. This is, however, an insufficient ground upon which to predicate a judicial determination that the provisions of a will are partially ineffective when the record demonstrates that an essential condition to such a decision under the express terms of the statute has not met with compliance.

The motion for reargument is accordingly granted, and on such reargument the court must adhere to its former decision.

Enter decree on notice in conformity herewith.
U.S. Gieparlment of Energy



## Energy Efficiency and Item 

# We Energy

EEFE Home

Appliances Horne About Standards Laws & Regulations Information Resources Notices & Rules Priority Setting 2006 Schedule Setting Public Workshops & Hearings State Petitions Useful Links Commercial Products Residential Products Battery Chargers & External Power Supplies Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Clothes Dryers Clothes Washers Cooking Products Dehumidifiers Dishwashers Furnaces & Boilers General Service Fluorescent Incandescent Reflectors Plumbing Products Pool Heaters Refrigerators ,5 Freezers Room Air Conditioners Small Duct, High Velocity Air Conditioners Water Heaters Search Help t More S^-arrii Options A EERE Information Center 

## Dehumidifier Rulemaking The Department held an informal public meeting on April 27, 2006, to discuss and receive comments on issues to be addressed in the Framework Document for establishing energy conservation standards for residential electric and gas ranges and ovens and microwave ovens, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers. The Department is also initiating the data collection. Written comments on these subjects are encouraged and should be received by May 11, 2006.
For information related to the April 27, 2006, meeting, visit the Horne Appliances Public Meeting webpage. 

### Some of the [oliowing documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs.



## Framework Document Rulemaking Framework for Commercial Clothes Washers and Residential Dishwashers, 1

Dphit-nidifiers, and Cooking Products, March 15, 2006 (PDF 402 KB) 

## Energy Conservation Standard Rulemaking Notice of public workshop and availability of Fr ork Document, Federal Register, March 27, 2006 (PDF 70 KB , I = 2 

### Contact Information Bryan_Berringer Program Manager (202) 586-0371

t5i Printable Version

Webmaster I Security & Privacy I Building Technologies Program Home I EERE Home U.S. Department of Energy Content Last Updated : 04/28/2006

# Summary of Comments on http://www.eere.energy. gov/buildings/appliance-standards/reside Page: 1
Number: 1 Author: DOE Subject: Note Date: 9/4/2007 4:49:04 PM 

## See comment number 01.1 Number: 2 Author: DOE Subject: Note Date: 9/4/2007 4:42:02 PM 

## See comment number 01.2
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 1249 LT Case No. 2022

- CT

- 001775

- A

_____________________________
D ARRIN S HANE J ONES , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Seminole County

. Wayne Culver , Judge

. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Jane Almy, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberts J. Bradford, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

December 5, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , E ISNAUGLE , and B OATWRIGHT , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
Exhibit 32

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

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

In connection with the annual report of Lexon Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kenneth J. Eaken, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best
of my knowledge and belief:

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

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


Date: April 14, 2004     /S/Kenneth J. Eaken
                            Principal Executive Officer
                            Principal Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41673

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

MANUEL RAMIRO MARTINEZ-RIVERA, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:16-CR-488-1 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Manuel Ramiro Martinez-Rivera pleaded guilty to illegally reentering 

the country after he was deported, and he received a 57-month sentence. On 

appeal, Martinez-Rivera contends that the district court erred by imposing a

16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a)(1)(A)(ii) (2015) based on a 

finding that his prior Texas aggravated assault conviction was a crime of 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 22, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41673 Document: 00514127074 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2017
No. 16-41673

2 

violence. We review this determination de novo. United States v. Alay, 850 

F.3d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 2017). 

Acknowledging that in United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 

198 (5th Cir. 2007), this court held that Texas aggravated assault is an 

enumerated crime of violence for purposes of § 2L1.2(a)(1)(A)(ii) (2015), 

Martinez-Rivera argues that the court’s conclusion has been called into 

question by the reasoning of other circuit courts. However, one panel of this 

court may not overrule the decision of another absent an intervening change 

in the law, for instance through a superseding decision of the Supreme Court 

or this court sitting en banc. United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 489 (5th 

Cir. 2014). Moreover, this court has recently reaffirmed the holding in GuillenAlvarez. United States v. Shepherd, 848 F.3d 425, 428 (5th Cir. 2017).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-41673 Document: 00514127074 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2017
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10650 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus HORACE A. CARAKER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CR-317-R)

- - - - - - - - - - March 19, 1997 Before Wisdom, King, and Smith, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Horace A. Caraker appeals his conviction for threatening to take the life of or inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States. Caraker argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the district court erred in refusing to grant a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility. After careful review of the record, we find that the trial evidence is sufficient to support Caraker’sNo. 96-10650 - 2 -

2 See United States v. Barton , 992 F.2d 66, 68 (5th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Howell , 719 F.2d 1258, 1260 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied , 467 U.S. 1228 (1984).

3 See United States v. Payne , 99 F.3d 1273, 1281 (5th Cir. 1996). conviction. 2 Also, the district court did not clearly err by refusing to grant Caraker a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility. 3
AFFIRMED.