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

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 8
          - [PS Docket Nos. 23-239; FR ID 258059]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Federal Communications Commission is correcting the                         **DATES**                         section of a final rule that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         on October 21, 2024 announcing a 15-business day filing window for applications from entities seeking designation as a Cybersecurity Labeling Administrator (CLA) and Lead Administrator and also adopting additional requirements for CLAs and Lead Administrators.                    

# DATES:

Effective November 20, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Tara Shostek, Attorney Advisor, Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-8130, or by email to                         *Tara.Shostek@fcc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In rule document 2024-23844 at 89 FR 84086, appearing on page 84086 in the                     **Federal Register**                     of Monday, October 21, 2024, in the third column, the                     **DATES**                     section is corrected to read as follows:                

*Effective date:*                     November 20, 2024, except for amendment 3 (47 CFR 8.220(f)(14)) which is delayed indefinitely until the Office of Management and Budget has completed review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission will publish a document in the                     **Federal Register**                     announcing that effective date.                

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene Dortch,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-25404 Filed 10-31-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
* 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. 95-40878 (Summary Calendar)

CLAY WEST KING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

M. LOYA; J. BRAGGS,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(USDC No. G-91-CV-455)

- - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This is an appeal from the district court’s order dismissing

appellant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d). Appellant contends that the defendants changed his

classification without justification; the defendants retaliated

against him for filing grievances and lawsuits by changing his

classification and by filing fals e disciplinary charges; the

defendants filed false or “bad” disciplinary charges against him;

a pri son official unnamed in this action used excessive force2

against him; and some of his legal documents were lost or destroyed

when he was transferred to another unit. We have reviewed the

record and the appellant’s brief and find no abuse of discretion in

the dismissal. S ee Denton v. Hernandez

, 504 U.S. 25, 31-32 (1992).

Accordingly, the appeal presents no issue of arguable merit and is

therefore frivolous. S ee Howard v. King

, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th

Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. 5th

Cir. R. 42.2.

We caution appellant that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, appellant is further cautioned to

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous becaus e they have been previously

decided by this court.

DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,281
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,920
<ALLOWANCES>                                       512
<INVENTORY>                                        825
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,577
<PP&E>                                          12,006
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,624
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,102
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,118
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,015
<SALES>                                          1,398
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,344
<CGS>                                              894
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,005
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,017
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   153
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,363
<INCOME-TAX>                                       490
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                873
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       873
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
#### COWAN, McCLUNG & CO. v. W. R. BAIRD and others.

*Demurrer*— Pleading—Surety *and Prineijoal.*

1. A demurrer to a complaint, upon the ground that the same fails to state affirmatively that the plaintiffs constitute a firm, and also fails to set out the names of the individuals composing the firm, is frivolous and’ entitles the plaintiffs to judgment.

2. If one sign a note as surety, in the presence of an agent of the obligee,, with the *mutual*understanding that he is not to be thereby bound unless one W shall also sign the same as surety, he is not liable thereon, unless the note is so signed by W.

Civil Actior tried at Spring Term, 1877, of Buucombe' Superior Court, before *'Furches, J.*

This was an action on a note executed to the plaintiffs by the defendants. The plaintiffs moved for judgment on the-ground that neither the answer of Baird nor the demurrer of the other defendants raised any issue of law or fact material to the case. The Court overruled the motion and held that said answer and demurrer did raise an issue of fact' and law, and were not frivolous. From which ruling the plaintiffs appealed.

*Mr. J. H.*Merrmon, for plaintiffs.

*Messrs. Busbee Busbee and W. H. Malone,*for defebdants-

EaieCLOth, J.

The complaint alleges that defendants-made their promissory note payable to plaintiffs, and that no part thereof has been paid. The defendants admit these allegations.

All the defendants, except Baird, demur to the complaint on the ground that it does not state affirmatively that the plaintiffs constitute a firm, nor who compose the firm of Cowan, McClung & Co. On reading the complaint it i& *202plain that the demurrer is frivolous, and the plaintiffs were •entitled to judgment against these defendants.

The defendant, Baird, filed an answer and for his defence ■says : That he signed the note in the presence of plaintiffs’ agent, as security, with the understanding on his (Baird’s) part that he would not be bound, unless one Weaver should also sign the note as security, and that he signed it with the express understanding that Weaver would sign it; that the note was then handed to said agent, and that it was never signed by Weaver.

The plaintiffs say the agent did not accept the note with ¡such understanding. This presents a question of fact to be determined by a jury, and we cau express no opinion about it, except to say, that if said understanding was mutual, the defendant, Baird, is not liable because the condition precedent has not been performed, bat if it was not mutual, he is liable. The bond was signed and delivered, and the intention of one party not participated in by the other, cannot .avoid it.

- Let judgment be entered here against all the defendants, •except Baird, and the case be remanded for further proceedings.

Pbb Curiam. Judgment accordingly.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
STATEMENTS  FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000925664
<NAME> WOODLAKE VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          561
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246

<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,807)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>
TSD for U.S. EPA’s Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for FL Inland Surface Fresh Waters



## Appendix B-4: Statistical Analysis of Nutrient Water Quality Parameters by Florida WatershedsTSD for U.S. EPA’s Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for FL Inland Surface Fresh Waters

B4-1 

### Appendix B-4. Statistical Analysis of Nutrient Water Quality Parameters by Florida Watersheds
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) used nutri ent water quality data collected across Florida and contained within Fl orida’s Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) database. Data tables of nutrient water quality sampling stations and their associated waterbody IDs (WBID) were joined to the Na tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Assessment Framework (CAF) delinea tion of estuarine drainage ar eas (EDAs), fluvial drainage areas (FDAs), and coastal drainage areas (CDAs). WBID centroids were joined to the CAF so that all stations in WBIDs were also mapped to an EDA, FDA, or CDA. Stations that were identified in the IWR database as Stream or Blackwater and had correspondi ng total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) data were iden tified and aggregated by EDA, FDA, or CDA. This resulted in approximately 145,000 paired obse rvations or sampling events distributed in watershed stream networks across Florida. The m ean, distributional statisti cs of all observations and the median molar TN:TP ratio were comput ed for each watershed are shown in a summary table in Chapter 2a. “Detailed data for each draina ge area are also available for TP and TN, but are too extensive to be included here. The da ta have been included in the following docket:

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596: Water Qualit y Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters

The data are associated with docket docum ent number, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0002, and can be found in the following file: “FL_IWR_Estuary_Database.mdb”.
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
William C. Bopp, certify to my knowledge pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Viking Systems, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for
the annual period ended December 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Viking Systems,
Inc.






Date:
      March 31, 2008
            /s/ William C. BoppWilliam
      C. BoppChief
      Executive Officer
NO. 12-15-00262-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF

S.B. AND A.B.,

CHILDREN

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 3RD

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). After 

reviewing the motion, the Court is of the opinion that it should be granted. Accordingly, 

Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.2(a).

Opinion delivered December 3, 2015.

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

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

DECEMBER 3, 2015

NO. 12-15-00262-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.B. AND A.B., CHILDREN

Appeal from the 3rd District Court 

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2014C-1031)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss 

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and 

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45038

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

THOR FITZGERALD WARE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 425

Filed: April 18, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Madison County. Hon. Gregory W. Moeller, District Judge. 

Order granting Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of 

sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Thor Fitzgerald Ware, Jr. pled guilty to rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101(2). The district court 

imposed a unified sentence of twelve years, with a minimum period of confinement of three 

years, and retained jurisdiction. After the rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Ware

filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court 

granted, reducing Ware’s sentence to ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two 

and one-half years. Ware appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion in 

declining to further reduce his sentence.
2

Initially, we note that a lower court’s decision to grant or deny a Rule 35 motion will not 

be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. State v. Villarreal, 126 Idaho 277, 281, 

882 P.2d 444, 448 (Ct. App. 1994). Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered 

in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established. See State v. Hernandez, 

121 Idaho 114, 822 P.2d 1011 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 

(Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire 

sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Since the district court 

later modified Ware’s sentence, pursuant to his Rule 35 motion, we will only review Ware’s 

modified sentence for an abuse of discretion. See State v. McGonigal, 122 Idaho 939, 940-41, 

842 P.2d 275, 276-77 (1992). 

Ware has the burden of showing a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the district 

court in failing to further reduce the sentence on his Rule 35 motion. See State v. Cotton, 100 

Idaho 573, 577, 602 P.2d 71, 75 (1979). Ware has failed to show such an abuse of discretion. 

Accordingly, the order of the district court granting Ware’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 2397** 

CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
UNITED STATES; NEW TECHNOLOGY HOME

- BROADCASTING BUSINESS , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 1:14

- c v - 03609

- JFM )

Submitted : March 1 7 , 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Catherine Denise Randolph, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Catherine Denise Randolph appeals the district cou rt ’ s
order dismissing her complaint as frivolous and for failing to
state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district

c ourt. Randolph v. United States , No. 1:14

- cv - 03609

- JFM (D. Md.
Dec. 12, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional pr ocess.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.200
                                   DEMAND NOTE

$393,750.00                                                   New York, New York
                                                              August 1, 2001

        FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Wilshire Technologies, Inc. a
California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower"), hereby
unconditionally PROMISES TO PAY to the order to TRILON DOMINION PARTNERS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Lender"), at 245 Park Avenue, 28th Floor,
New York, NY 10167, or at such other place as the holder of this Demand Note may
designate from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of
America and in immediately available funds, the principal amount of Three
Hundred Ninety Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty and 00/100, DOLLARS
($393,750.00), together with interest on the unpaid principal amount of this
Demand Note outstanding from time to time from the date hereof, at a rate per
annum equal to the Prime rate of interest plus 3.0%, or the highest rate
permitted by law, whichever shall be less.

        The principal amount of the indebtedness evidenced hereby shall be
payable on demand. Interest thereon shall be paid when principal is paid from
the date hereof until such principal amount is paid in full at such interest
rate as specified above. Following failure to pay on demand, Borrower agrees to
pay interest on any overdue payment of principal at a rate per annum equal to
the stated interest rate plus 5%, or the highest rate permitted by law,
whichever shall be less. All interest calculations shall be computed on the
basis of a 360 day year.

        Demand, presentment, protest and notice of nonpayment and protest are
hereby waived by Borrower.

        Borrower shall have no right to make any off-set against or deduct from
any payment due under this Demand Note.

        Principal and interest may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

        This Demand Note may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in
writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of such change is
sought.

        All covenants of Borrower in this Demand Note and all rights of the
holder under this Demand Note shall bind Borrower and its successors and
assigns, and all such covenants and rights shall inure to the benefit of the
holder of this Demand Note and its successors and assigns.

        This Demand Note has been delivered and accepted at New York, New York
and shall be interpreted, governed by, and construed in accordance with, the
laws of the State of New York.

                                            Wilshire Technologies, Inc.


                                            By: /s/ Kathleen Terry
                                                --------------------------------
                                            Name:  Kathleen E. Terry
                                            Title:Chief Financial Officer