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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             853,383
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      136,852
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,414,260
<PP&E>                                             711,305
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,850,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              994,663
<BONDS>                                             38,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          5,485
<COMMON>                                            75,625
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,736,945 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,850,718 
<SALES>                                          3,340,367 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,340,367 
<CGS>                                            2,620,896 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,106,180 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   216,547 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 142,070 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,470,282)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        41,775 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,512,057)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,512,057)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.59)
                                               


</TABLE>
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Road, Critical Area Planting, Fence, Fish Passage, Riparian Forest Buffer, Riparian Herbaceous Cover, Stream Habitat Improvement and Management, Watering Facility.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 21744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08806]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board

AGENCY: Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Charter Renewal.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and in accordance with Title 41 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, section 102-3.65(a), and following 
consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General 
Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB or Board) will be 
renewed for a two-year period beginning April 11, 2014.
    The Board provides the Assistant Secretary for Environmental 
Management (EM) with information, advice, and recommendations 
concerning issues affecting the EM program at various sites. These 
site-specific issues include clean-up standards and environmental 
restoration; waste management and disposition; stabilization and 
disposition of non-stockpile nuclear materials; excess facilities; 
future land use and long-term stewardship; risk assessment and 
management; and clean-up science and technology activities.
    Additionally, the renewal of the Environmental Management Site-
Specific Advisory Board has been determined to be essential to conduct 
the Department of Energy's business and to be in the public interest in 
connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of 
Energy, by law and agreement. The Board will operate in accordance with 
the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and rules and 
regulations issued in implementation of that Act.
    Further information regarding this Advisory Board may be obtained 
from Mr. David Borak, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 586-9928.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 11, 2014.
Amy Bodette,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-08806 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
#### Dahl, Respondent, vs. Bank of Dallas, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Doar & Knowles*of New Richmond, and *A. J. Connors*of Barron.

For the respondent: *Frawley & Frawley*of Eau Claire.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1353

JOSEPH WOLETE,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A76-916-409)

Submitted: October 1, 2003 Decided: October 16, 2003

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.

Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Senior

Litigation Counsel, John M. McAdams, Jr., Office of Immigration

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Wolete, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”)

affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s order denying

his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture. Wolete challenges the

immigration judge’s finding that his asylum application was

untimely and that he failed to demonstrate a change in

circumstances or extraordinary circumstances excusing the late

filing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000); 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5) (2003). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction

to review this claim pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). See

Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 544 (6th Cir. 2003);

Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 185-86 (3rd Cir. 2003);

Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2003); Fahim

v. United States Attorney Gen., 278 F.3d 1216, 1217-18 (11th Cir.

2002); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2001); Ismailov

v. Reno, 263 F.3d 851, 854-55 (8th Cir. 2001). Given this

jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of

Wolete’s asylum claim.

Accordingly, we deny Wolete’s petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
3

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRulemaking DocumentsRulemaking Dockets

# Rulemaking Dockets for 2009

subscribe to page updates
*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, April 5, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, April 5, 2022
EXHIBIT 32.a



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 Quarterly Report of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the registrant, 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, after due inquiry:



|(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 results of operations of the registrant.



|                |  |                            
|--------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:           |  |                            
|August 13, 2010 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                |  |                            
|                |  | John P. Manning            
|                |  | Principal Executive 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 the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Joseph Marcel VonEISELEIN, Appellant, v. J. C. TAYLOR, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee.

No. 8021.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

April 27, 1965.

Bill Earl Tom, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Banjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., Topeka Kan., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PICKETT, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order entered in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, dismissing Von-Eiselein’s petition for habeas corpus after a hearing. The petitioner was convicted in the State District Court of Twin Falls County, Idaho on the charge of first degree burglary. He was sentenced to serve a term of 15 years, to run concurrently with another sentence. Von-Eiselein is now serving those sentences in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, under an agreement entered into between the U. S. Director of the Bureau of Prisons and the Idaho State Board of Correction. The agreement is authorized by 18 U.S.C.A. *920§ 5003 and the Idaho statutes Sections 20-247, 20-248, and 20-249.

 The petitioner alleges that he was illegally transferred from the Idaho State penitentiary to the United States penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, and is being illegally held by the warden thereof who has no legal jurisdiction over him. It is not alleged that the Idaho sentences are void nor is it contended that there has been any proceedings in the ■ Idaho State Courts to test the validity of his transfer. In any event, if the transfer were to be declared illegal, the petitioner would not be entitled to release, but would be returned to the Idaho authorities. Eckman v. Byington, 9 Cir., 290 F.2d 1; Battista v. Kenton, 2 Cir., 312 F.2d 167. Petitioner is a state prisoner and not entitled to maintain habeas corpus in federal courts until he has exhausted his remedies in the state courts. Sides v. Tinsley, 10 Cir., 333 F.2d 1002; Sepulveda v. Colorado, 10 Cir., 335 F.2d 581; Keller v. Tinsley, 10 Cir., 335 F.2d 144, cert. denied 379 U.S. 938, 85 S.Ct. 342, 13 L.Ed.2d 348; Henry v. Tinsley, 10 Cir., 344 F.2d 109; Battista v. Kenton, supra; Pratt v. Hagan, 3 Cir., 273 F.2d 956.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2020 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2020

 To provide for the rescheduling of marijuana into schedule III of the 
                       Controlled Substances Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2017

  Mr. Gaetz (for himself and Mr. Soto) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
    addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the rescheduling of marijuana into schedule III of the 
                       Controlled Substances Act.

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

SECTION 1. RESCHEDULING OF MARIJUANA.

    Notwithstanding section 201 and subsections (a) and (b) of section 
202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811, 812) respecting 
the scheduling of controlled substances, the Attorney General of the 
United States shall, by order not later than 60 days after the date of 
enactment of this section, transfer marijuana (for purposes of this Act 
given the same meaning given the term ``marihuana'' in section 102 of 
such Act) from schedule I of such Act to schedule III of such Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                       
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.17

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$5,050,000.00 U.S.                                           Las Vegas, Nevada
                                                             November 5, 1998

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, SAXTON INCORPORATED, a Nevada corporation ("Maker"),
promises to pay to JAMES C. SAXTON, an individual, or order ("Holder"), the
principal sum of Five Million Fifty Thousand Dollars ($5,050,000.00), together
with interest thereon from the date hereof at the rate of twelve percent (12%)
per annum.

PAYMENTS. The entire principal balance hereunder and all interest accrued
thereon shall be due and payable ninety (90) days after the date of this Note.
Payments shall be made in lawful monies of the United States of America and
delivered to Holder at 5440 W. Sahara Avenue, 3rd Floor, Las Vegas, Nevada
89146, or such other address as Holder may give Maker in writing from time to
time. All payments shall be applied first to any late charges accruing
hereunder, then to accrued interest, and finally to the principal balance
hereof.

PREPAYMENT. Maker may prepay this Note in full or in part, without premium or
penalty.

DEFAULT INTEREST. All delinquent sums hereunder (whether principal, interest or
both) shall bear interest from the date due until fully paid, at the rate of
fourteen and one-half percent (14.5%) per annum.

ENFORCEMENT. Time is of the essence hereof. Maker hereby waives presentment,
protest and notice of dishonor. In the event Maker fails to pay any sums due
hereunder as and when the same are due and payable, Holder shall have the right,
at its option and without limiting any other rights and remedies available to
Holder, to declare the entire principal amount hereof and any interest and late
charges accrued hereunder, to be immediately due and payable in full. In the
event of any action to enforce the provisions of this Note or to collect any
sums due hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs
and reasonable attorneys therein.

                                       

<PAGE>

MISCELLANEOUS. This Note shall be binding upon Maker and its successors and
assigns. This Note shall be governed under the laws of the State of Nevada. The
terms and provisions of this Note may not be amended except by written
instrument executed by Maker and Holder. If any provision hereof is declared
invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, said
determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining
provisions hereof.

MAKER:

SAXTON INCORPORATED,
a Nevada corporation



By:
    --------------------------
    James C. Saxton, President

                                        2
HomeSite Help

# Site Map

The following pages outline the primary categories into which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has organized the information available through our public Web site. These categories relate directly to the tabs and drop-down menus in our site banner, as illustrated below.
        - Nuclear Reactors
        - Nuclear Materials
        - Radioactive Waste
        - Nuclear Security & Safeguards
        - Public Meetings & Involvement
        - NRC Library
        - About NRC
        - Additional Site Features

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, June 23, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Index A-Z
          - Site Map
          - What's New On Our Site
          - Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools
          - Special Features
          - Electronic Submittals Application
          - Digital Accessibility Statement
          - Contact the NRC Webmaster
          - Privacy Policy
          - Site Disclaimer
          - For Developers

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, June 23, 2020
----

Action brought on 4 March 2004 by Marta Cristiana Moren Abat against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-92/04)

(2004/C 118/95)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 March 2004 by Marta Cristiana Moren Abat, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. Leibitsch, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those submitted in Case T-91/04 Just v Commission.

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

NO. 89-3654

_________________________ RONALD CHISOM, MARIE BOOKMAN, WALTER WILLARD, MARC MORIAL,

HENRY DILLON, III, and the LOUISIANA VOTER REGISTRATION/EDUCATION CRUSADE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff-IntervenorAppellant
versus EDWIN W. EDWARDS, Governor of the State of Louisiana, W. FOX McKEITHEN, Louisiana Secretary of State, and JERRY M. FOWLER, Commissioner of Elections of the

State of Louisiana, Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

_________________________________________________________________ (October 6, 1992) ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before KING, JOHNSON and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The consent judgment referred to in our order filed on August 21, 1992, having been entered by the district court, these appeals are DISMISSED.