alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p.1 

OAR Box 1796 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

46) V-A-02 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:37 PM Sheet 46 of 107 
P.2 

R-qo-2n 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

February 28, 2003 

OI-TKI 1 

AIR AND RADIATK 

3 2003 

EPA AIP Dear State and Local Agencies: 

This letter is to inform you that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 

promulgated revisions to the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) portions of State Implement;! 

Plans (SIP) in 40 CFR Part 52, Subparts (C) through (DDD). These revisions will incorporate by 

reference in the FIP's the changes to the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

program (contained in 40 CFR § 52.21) that we published on December 31, 2002. 67 Fed. Reg. 

80186. The Federal Register will publish a notice of this action within the next tew days. 

The December 31, 2002, notice in the Federal Register made changes to the applicability 

of the PSD and nonattainment New Source Review programs. We originally proposed these 

changes in 1996, 61 FR 38250. That Federal Register notice also included a proposal to include 

the changed applicability approaches in Part 52 regulations governing Federal permitting 

programs. We are now taking final action on this portion of the proposal dealing with the Part 52 

regulations by revising the paragraph references in the FIP's to be consistent with the current 

regulations at 40 CFR Part 52.21. The Administrator signed the final action on 

February 28, 2003. 

Notice of this final action may not be published in the Federal Register before 

March 3. 2003, which is the effective date of the revised Federal PSD program. Therefore, we 

are notifying affected governmental entities of these changes by letter. A copy of the Federal 

Register notice is attached for your infonnation. If you have any questions about this Federal 

Register notice or the revised Federal PSD program, please contact Lynn Hutchinson at 

(919) 541-5795 or by electronic mail at hutchinson.lynn@epa.gov. We look forward to working 

with you to ensure a smooth transition to the revised Federal PSD program. 

Sincerely. 

Isl 

Jeffrey R. Holmstead 

Assistant Administrator
34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a 

demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); 

NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3). Moreover, because the State specifically 

pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the rebuttable 

presumption of prejudice. NRS 34.800(2). 

Appellant neither argued that he had good cause nor 

attempted to overcome the presumption of prejudice. Rather, he argued 

that any procedural bars should be excused because he is actually 

innocent since new technology exists to test DNA that was collected in the 

case, and if it were tested, it would demonstrate that he did not commit 

the sexual assault for which he was convicted. Anticipated but nonexistent test results are not evidence. Thus, appellant did not 

demonstrate actual innocence because he failed to show that "it is more 

likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light 

of. . . new evidence." Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998) 

(quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see also Pellegrini v. 

State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001); Mazzan v. Warden, 112 

Nev. 838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996). We therefore conclude that the 

district court did not err in denying appellant's ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claims as procedurally barred. 

It appears that the district court may not have considered 

appellant's remaining claim: that he ought to be granted permission to 

test the DNA collected in this case. However, remand is unnecessary 

because the claim is not cognizable in a post-conviction petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus. Rather, appellant must submit his request on the form 

designated by the Department of Corrections. NRS 176.0918; NDOC AR 

571. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A .4ft11 

2 
J. 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude appellant's petition is 

without merit, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 

Har sty 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge 

Roy D. Moraga 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in 

proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude 

that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent 

that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those 

submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings 

below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance. 

3
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directorsand Stockholders 

Excelligence Learning Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-107917, 333-75602, 333-64766, 333-64764 and 333-64762) on Form S-8 of Excelligence Learning Corporation of our reportdated April 7, 2006, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Excelligence Learning Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, equity, and cash flows for eachof the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of Excelligence Learning Corporation. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

San Francisco, California

April 14, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           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  Kingdom  Ventures,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form  10-KSB/A for the year ended  January 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Gene Jackson, President,  Secretary, Treasurer and Director (principal executive
officer and principal financial officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and 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.

      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to  Kingdom  Ventures,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by  Kingdom
Ventures,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.


May 26, 2004            /s/ Gene Jackson
                        -----------------------------
                        Gene Jackson
                        President, Secretary, Treasurer
                        and Director (principal executive
                        officer and principal financial
                        officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert L. Bailey, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 1002]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Violation of Probation.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 92948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27536]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK RC2 Application 
Review.
    Date: February 13, 2025.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: National Institutes of Health, NIDDK, Democracy II, 
Suite 7000A, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: Cheryl Nordstrom, Ph.D., MPH, Scientific Review 
Officer, NIDDK/Scientific Review Branch, National Institutes of 
Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Room 7013, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-
402-6711, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 19, 2024
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-27536 Filed 11-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
#### Ellis, Respondent, vs. Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee Railroad Company, Appellant.

*October 8*

November *5, 1929.*

*17For the appellant there was a brief by *Edgar L. Wood*and *John H. McQuaid,*both of Milwaukee, attorneys, and *A. L. Gardner*of Chicago, of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. McQuaid.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Fawcett & Dutcher*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *George C. Dutcher.*

Fowler, J.

The ruling of the circuit judge was clearly right, at least as to the false imprisonment count, and the defendant was not prejudiced by the court’s not submitting the other count to the jury.

Defendant’s counsel urge that the arrest was lawful because a police officer may arrest without a warrant a person who is committing a breach of the peace or violating a statute or ordinance in his presence. The plaintiff failed to tender and refused to pay sufficient fare. But this did not constitute a breach of the peace, and no statute or ordinance is cited which the plaintiff was violating. It is suggested that the defendant would have violated a federal statute had the conductor accepted the mileage. As to that, he did accept the mileage; but if it be correct that the defendant thereby violated a statute, the defendant’s violation did not constitute a violation by the plaintiff. The statutes cited, except one, are provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act relating only to transportation of freight, which, manifestly have no application to this case. The one, U. S. Code, title 49, ch. 1, sec. 1, par. (7), relates to the granting of free transportation to passengers by carriers, but not to acceptance of it by the passenger. Obviously the plaintiff’s acts do not fall within the prohibitions of any of these statutes.

*By the Court.*— The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET  AND  STATEMENT  INCOME  FOR ANCHOR NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY'S FORM
10-K  THE  QUARTER  ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    3953169000
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                            0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                              0
<EQUITIES>                                       0
<MORTGAGE>                               674679000
<REAL-ESTATE>                             24000000
<TOTAL-INVEST>                          5551969000
<CASH>                                   475162000
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                  1089979000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         26874494000
<POLICY-LOSSES>                         5538797000
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                           37816000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                   3511000
<OTHER-SE>                               931615000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           26874494000
<PREMIUMS>                                       0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                      518280000
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                       (19620000)
<OTHER-INCOME>                           455392000
<BENEFITS>                              (354064000)
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>             (116840000)
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                     (40760000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          287723000
<INCOME-TAX>                            (103025000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      184698000
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                             184698000
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                   0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                              0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                               0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                 0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                  0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                          0


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 92995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27492]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12594]

Waiver of Missile Proliferation Sanctions

ACTION: Notice of determination.

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

SUMMARY: A determination has been made pursuant to the Arms Export 
Control Act and Export Administration Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Durham, Office of Missile, 
Biological, and Chemical Nonproliferation, Bureau of International 
Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State (202-647-4930). On 
import ban issues, Lauren Sun, Assistant Director for Regulatory 
Affairs, Department of the Treasury (202-622-4855). On U.S. Government 
procurement ban issues, Eric Moore, Office of the Procurement 
Executive, Department of State (703-875-4079), email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Consistent with section 654(c) of the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, notice is hereby given that 
the Secretary of State has made a determination pursuant to section 73 
of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b) and section 11B(b) of 
the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2410b(b)), as 
carried out under Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, and has 
concluded that publication of the determination would be harmful to the 
national security of the United States.

Ann K. Ganzer,
Acting Assistant Secretary, International Security and 
Nonproliferation, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2024-27492 Filed 11-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-27-P
```
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 107 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Labor 

to prioritize the provision of services to homeless veterans with dependent 

children in carrying out homeless veterans reintegration programs, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Ms. BROWNLEY of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Labor to prioritize the provision of services 

to homeless veterans with dependent children in carrying 

out homeless veterans reintegration programs, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeless Veterans 

5 with Children Reintegration Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 107 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRIORITY UNDER HOMELESS VETERANS RE2 INTEGRATION PROGRAMS FOR HOMELESS 

3 VETERANS WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN. 

4 (a) PRIORITY FOR HOMELESS VETERANS WITH DE5 PENDENT CHILDREN.—Subsection (a) of section 2021 of 

6 title 38, United States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘Subject to’’ and inserting ‘‘(1) 

8 Subject to’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

10 paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(2) In conducting programs under this section, the 

12 Secretary shall prioritize the provision of services to home13 less veterans with dependent children.’’. 

14 (b) ADDITIONAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—Sub15 section (d) of such section is amended— 

16 (1) by striking ‘‘the report an evaluation of 

17 services’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘each 

18 such report—’’; and 

19 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘(1) an evaluation of services furnished to vet21 erans under this section and an analysis of the infor22 mation collected under subsection (b); 

23 ‘‘(2) an analysis of any gaps in access to shel24 ter, safety, and services for homeless veterans with 

25 dependent children; and 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 107 IH

1 ‘‘(3) recommendations for improving any gaps 

2 identified under paragraph (2).’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
----

(2004/C 217/71)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 201, 7.8.2004

Past publications

OJ C 190, 24.7.2004

OJ C 179, 10.7.2004

OJ C 168, 26.6.2004

OJ C 156, 12.6.2004

OJ C 146, 29.5.2004

OJ C 106, 30.4.2004

These texts are available on:

----
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Alaska Environmental Studies Program

http://www.boem.gov/akstudies/

We are interested to know your perspectives and to receive any suggestions you may have for the 

BOEM Alaska Annual Studies Plan, FY 2014, which we are now beginning to formulate. Please 

keep in mind that studies proposed for our consideration must address specific BOEM mission 

and decision needs (see the webpage listed above for more information).

Formatting Guidance: We recommend study profiles be less than 2 pages. Please do not try to 

make this a detailed scope of work. If the study is selected for further consideration, BOEM will 

prepare a more detailed scope of work. Please provide the following categories of information.

Proposed Study for FY 2014

Region: Alaska [Standard for all.]

Planning Area(s): [e.g., Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Cook Inlet as applicable.]

Title: [Fill in concise title.]

BOEM Information Need(s) to be Addressed: Provide brief and conclusive reason(s) why 

BOEM needs the information. For example, identify how the study relates to analysis under the 

National Environmental Policy Act and/or specific BOEM decision(s), such as formulation of a 

mitigation measure. Please be as specific as possible.

Period of Performance: FY 2014-20XX

Description:

Background: Please provide 1 to 2 paragraphs on relevant issues. Explain what information is 

required and provide pertinent background. Include details about whether this study ties in with 

other efforts, and if so, how. Include a description of the current status of information. That is, 

what is the level of adequacy of existing information, does any exist, does it need to be more 

geographically specific?

Objectives: Clearly and succinctly state the objective(s) of the study. Explain what hypothesis 

will be tested or what questions will be answered by this study. We encourage the use of lists (1, 

2, 3, etc.) for multiple, related objectives.

Methods: Provide brief detail on what information, techniques or methods are available that 

could be used. Explain how the objectives of the study will be accomplished.

Date information is required: Provide dates when products would be most useful, such as 

“Final report is needed by December 2016.” If the product of the study is something additional 

to the scientific report (e.g. database, model, bibliography), explain in this section.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7388

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DON BENNY ANDERSON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-83-159-A, CA-97-749-AM) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 28, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Don Benny Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Kenneth E. Melson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Anderson , Nos. CR-83-159-A; CA-97-749-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 10, 1997). Appellant’s motions for the production of transcripts at government expense are denied, as is Appellant’smisdirected Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We deny Appellant’s motion for the appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-21-00274-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Marco Antonio GLORIA,

Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-02-07984-MCRAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE WATKINS, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED November 17, 2021.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice