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

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 92871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27377]

[[Page 92871]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2024-2333; Airspace Docket No. 24-AAL-111]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Class E Airspace; Alaska, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing the NPRM published in the Federal 
Register on November 7, 2024, which proposed to modify Class E airspace 
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a designated 
landmass and within 12 miles from a designated coastline associated 
with the state of Alaska. Additionally, this action proposed 
administrative amendments to update the airspace's existing Class E 
airspace legal description. These actions were to support lower 
altitude instrument flight rules (IFR) operations and enhance safety 
for aircraft utilizing IFR and visual flight rules (VFR) operations.

DATES: Effective as of 0901 UTC, November 25, 2024, the proposed rule 
published November 7, 2024 (89 FR 88182, November 7, 2024), is 
withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith T. Adams, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-2428.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal 
Register for Docket No. FAA-2024-2333 (89 FR 88182; November 7, 2024). 
The NPRM proposed to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 
1,200 feet above the surface within a designated landmass and within 12 
miles from a designated coastline associated with the state of Alaska. 
Additionally, this action proposed administrative amendments to update 
the airspace's existing Class E airspace legal description. Interested 
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by 
submitting written comments on the proposal. The FAA is withdrawing 
this NPRM to further explain the FAA's proposal and to provide 
additional information about the need for the change.

The Withdrawal

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2024-
2333 (89 FR 88182, November 7, 2024) FR Doc. 2024-25855 is hereby 
withdrawn.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on November 18, 2024.
B.G. Chew,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2024-27377 Filed 11-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, Appellant, vs. Tax Commission, Respondent.

*November 7, 1939*—

January *16, 1940.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *Frederick J. Miller*of Little Falls, Minnesota, *John L. Connolly*of St. Paul, Minnesota, and *Ela, Christianson & Ela*of Madison, and oral argument by *Mr. Miller, Mr. Connolly,*and *Mr. G. Burgess Ela*of Madison.

For the respondent there was a brief by the *Attorney*Gen^ *eral*and *Harold H. Persons,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Persons.*

*307Rosenberry, C. J.

The principal question involved in this case is that considered and determined in the case of J. *C. Penney Co. v. Tax Comm., ante,*p. 286, 289 N. W. 677. For the reasons stated in that case the judgment in this case must be reversed.

*By the Court.-*— The judgment appealed from is reversed, and cause remanded with directions to enter judgment setting aside the assessment.

Fowler, J., dissents.
#### STATE v. THOMAS STYLES.

Jurisdiction— *Overseer of Western Turnpike*Road— *Neglect'of Duty.*

The Courts of Justices of the Peace have exclusive original jurisdiction (under § 4, ch. 81, Laws 18G8-’9) of the offence of neglect of duty by overseers of the Western Turnpike Road.

INDICTMENT for Misdemeanor, tried at Fall Term, 1876, of Jackson Superior Court, before Gannon, *J*

The defendant was overseer of a public road and charged with neglect of duty. Laws 1868-’9, ch. 81, § 4. Upon the ' trial in the Court below the defendant moved to quash the bill of indictment upon the ground that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction, because the Act of Assembly fixed the punishment at a fine of ten dollars.

His Honor allowed the motion and discharged the defendant. From this judgment the Solicitor for the State appealed.

*Attorney General,*for the State.

*Messrs. G. 8. Ferguson*and *J. G. L. Gudger,*for the defendant.

Eaikcloth, J.

In pursuance of an Act, 1868-9, ch. 81, the defendant was appointed overseer of a portion of the Western Turnpike Hoad, and was indicted in the Superior Court for neglecting to keep his part of said road in repair.

The 4th section declares that any such overseer who shall neglect for six continuous days to keep his allotment in a good and passable condition, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction pay a fine of ten dollars.

Article IV, § 33 of the Constitution declares, “The several Justices of the Peace shall have exclusive original jurisdic*157tion under sucb regulations as the General Assembly shall prescribe * * * of all criminal matters arising within their counties, where the punishment cannot exceed a fine of fifty dollars or imprisonment for one month.” According to these provisions it seems clear that a Justice of the Peace has exclusive original jurisdiction of this offence and the question is not affected by some subsequent Acts of Assembly intended to divest the jurisdiction of the Superior Court in certain cases.

. His Honor quashed the bill'of indictment for want of jurisdiction and we concur in his action.

There is no error. Let this be certified to the end, &c.

PeR CuRIAM. ■ Judgment affirmed.
NO. 07-08-0055-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

NOVEMBER 13, 2008

______________________________

CESAR ANGEL DURAN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 181 DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY; ST

NO. 16917-B; HON. JOHN B. BOARD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Cesar Angel Duran was convicted on four counts of indecency with a child and two

counts of aggravated sexual assault. He seeks reversal by contending that the trial court

erred in 1) failing to instruct the jury that “it was improper for the Prosecutor to, in closing

argument at the guilt/innocence phase, characterize the Defendant’s non-testimonial

demeanor during the trial in a way that would lead to an inference of guilt,” and 2) failing
2

to sustain his objection to the State’s reference to his silence during closing argument in

the punishment phase. We affirm the judgment. 

Issue 1 - Comment on Demeanor

With regard to the failure to properly instruct the jury regarding consideration of

appellant’s non-testimonial demeanor, the record illustrates that appellant objected to the

argument, which objection the trial court sustained. Then, when appellant asked “for an

instruction,” the one given by the court tended to contradict its decision to sustain the

objection. Yet, appellant did not object to the instruction. Consequently, his complaint was

waived. See Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that a

litigant must object to preserve the alleged error for review). At the very least, an objection

not only would have given the trial court opportunity to address the inconsistency but it also

would have helped clarify or explain what it actually intended. Thus, the issue is waived.

Issue 2 - Improper Jury Argument

Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in “allowing” the State to refer to

appellant’s silence during its closing. While appellant objected to the utterance, he did not

do so until the State had finished its argument. Yet, an objection must be asserted

contemporaneously with or as soon as possible after the wrong occurs; if it is not, then the

complaint is waived. Starks v. State, 252 S.W.3d 704, 706 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2008, no

pet.); accord, Cunningham v. State, 848 S.W.2d 898, 905 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1993,

pet. ref’d) (stating that an objection made after the argument is untimely). Because

appellant waited until the end of the State’s argument to voice his objection, he waived the

purported error. The issue is overruled.
3

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

. Per Curiam

Do not publish.
EXHIBIT 15





AWARENESS LETTER OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








MidAmerican Energy Company


Des Moines, Iowa





We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited consolidated interim financial information of MidAmerican Energy Company and subsidiary for the periods ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, as indicated in our report dated May 7, 2010; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.





We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-153777 on Form S-3.





We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.








/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP





Des Moines, Iowa


May 7, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.2

              Certification of Chief Financial Officer 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 Quarterly Report of Mattson Technology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 28, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Ludger
Viefhues, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.




November 11, 2003                           /s/ LUDGER VIEFHUES
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                Ludger Viefhues
                                                Chief 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
required by Section 906, has been provided to Mattson Technology, Inc. and will
be retained by Mattson Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




                                       42
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            6962
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6962
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            14877
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         63154
<OTHER-SE>                                      (71069)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6962
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   647
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (647)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (647)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONSI, Reggie Cook, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Aduddell Industries, 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 and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe 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) Reserved;  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 this report based on suchevaluation;  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover 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 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 controls over financial reporting.Date: November 14, 2006/s/ Reggie Cook
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONSI, Ron Carte, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Aduddell Industries, 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 and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-(e)) for theregistrant 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) Reserved;  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 this report based on suchevaluation;  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover 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 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 controls over financial reporting.Date: August 14, 2006   /s/ Ron Carte Signature  Title: Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 13, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 78 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 78

Providing for the reappointment of Stephen M. Case as a citizen regent 
        of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2017

   Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself, Mr. Cole, and Ms. Matsui) 
  submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the reappointment of Stephen M. Case as a citizen regent 
        of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by 
reason of the expiration of the term of Stephen M. Case of Virginia on 
April 25, 2017, is filled by the reappointment of the incumbent. The 
reappointment is for a term of 6 years, beginning on April 26, 2017, or 
the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, whichever occurs 
later.
                                 <all>
```
-  About OSMRE 
          General Information
-  OSMRE Map 
-  State and Tribal Contacts 
Mission and Vision
-  History 
Offices and Organization
-  OSMRE Principal Deputy Director 
-  OSMRE Deputy Director 
-  Volunteers and Internships 
OSMRE Organization Chart

# OSMRE Map

## Contacts for States, Indian Tribes, and OSMRE

Trouble viewing the map? Access the table of Contacts for States, Indian Tribes, and OSMRE for the information.
----

|                             |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)     | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended  September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:  November 5, 2010 | /s/ Gregory E. Abel           |   |
|                    | Gregory E. Abel               |   |
|                    | President                     |   |
|                    | (principal executive officer) |   |