alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5182]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-71, RM-8920]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Chatom and Grove Hill, AL

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making 
filed by Capital Assets, Inc., permittee of Station WFOW(FM), Channel 
291C3, Chatom, Alabama, requesting the reallotment of Channel 291C3 to 
Grove Hill, Alabama, and modification of the authorization for Station 
WFOW(FM) to specify Grove Hill as its community of license, pursuant to 
the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. 
Coordinates used for Channel 291C3 at Grove Hill are 31-48-20 and 87-
38-07.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 14, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before April 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties 
should serve the petitioner, as follows: Capital Assets, Inc., Attn: 
Bennie E. Hewett, President, 311 Green Street, NE., Suite 211, 
Gainesville, GA 30501.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-71, adopted February 
14, 1997, and released February 21, 1997. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M 
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, 
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-5182 Filed 2-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### Rrafman KOCI, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-70998

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 14, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed December 14, 2017

Liana Harutunyan, Esquire, Attorney,, Law Offices of Liana Harutunyan, Van Nuys, CA, for Petitioner

Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Trial Attorney, ■ OIL, Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: REINHARDT, GILMAN,** and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Rrafman Koci, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) denial of his third motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.

*324The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Koci’s third motion to reopen. Ordinarily, “a party may file only one motion to reopen deportation or exclusion proceedings ... and that motion must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered....” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). A statutory exception is available, however, if the petitioner presents evidence that is “material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing,” *Id.*§ 1003,2(c)(3)(ii).

Koci’s third motion to reopen is both untimely and successive. Moreover, Koci has failed to demonstrate a material change of conditions in Albania that would entitle him to the statutory exception. The publication of our 2008 memorandum disposition on the Internet is not material to Koci’s application for relief because Koci has not demonstrated that the publication increased his risk of harm in Albania. Nor are the news articles attached to Koci’s motion material; Although they demonstrate that tensions between democrats and socialists continue, they do not establish a material change in Albania. Even more importantly, however, Koci has not presented evidence that negates the Immigration Judge’s initial adverse credibility finding, which we affirmed in a prior appeal. *Koci v. Mukasey,*270 Fed.Appx. 644 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Daniel H. KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. T. SMITH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7433

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 20, 2018

Decided: February 28, 2018

*220Daniel H. King, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel H. King, a District of Columbia Code offender civilly committed under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *King v. Smith,*No, 5:16-hc-02291-D, 2017 WL 4621778 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 16, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
No. 10-1322.

#### DIRECTV, Inc., et al. *v.*Testa, Tax Commissioner of Ohio.

Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8229 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8229

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
 issue a rule authorizing the Office of Hearings and Appeals to decide 
 appeals relating to the status of HUBZone business concerns, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Parity for HUBZone Appeals Act of 
2020''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR THE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS TO DECIDE 
              APPEALS RELATING TO QUALIFIED HUBZONE SMALL BUSINESS 
              CONCERNS.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall issue a 
rule authorizing the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the 
Administration to decide all appeals from formal protest determinations 
in connection with the status of a concern as qualified HUBZone small 
business concern (as such term is defined in section 31(b) of the Small 
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a(b))).

            Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 8229

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
 issue a rule authorizing the Office of Hearings and Appeals to decide 
 appeals relating to the status of HUBZone business concerns, and for 
                            other purposes.
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                        EXHIBIT 11.1

                  STEVENS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATIONS OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)
                 (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED     NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                              SEPTEMBER 30,         SEPTEMBER 30,
                                             1995       1996      1995         1996
                                            ------     ------    -------     -------
<S>                                       <C>       <C>         <C>       <C>
Primary and fully diluted:
 
Weighted average shares outstanding.....     9,396      9,451      9,396      9,451
Assumed exercise of Series A and B
 stock options  (Treasury stock method).    ------    -------     ------    -------
                                               187         --        188         --
                                            ------    -------     ------    -------
Total common share equivalents..........     9,583      9,451      9,584      9,451
                                            ======    =======     ======    =======
 
Net income (loss).......................    $1,781    $(4,067)    $4,781    $(8,893)
                                            ======    =======     ======    =======
 
Per share amounts  -- Primary and fully
 diluted:
 
Net income (loss).......................    $ 0.19    $ (0.43)    $ 0.50    $ (0.94)
                                            ======    =======     ======    =======
 
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Drew Justice WINDSOR, also known as Justice Windsor, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10115 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 22, 2018

Kirby A. Heller, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brett Davis Boone, Law Office of Brett D. Boone, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Drew Justice Windsor pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. He now appeals his sentence.

The district court did not clearly err by applying the dangerous weapon enhancement pursuant to U.-S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l). *See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,*
      *323517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court’s finding that Windsor’s co-conspirator used an incorrect date in asserting that she frequently saw Windsor with a gun during drug deals is plausible in light of her assertion that she had known Windsor for two years prior to her arrest. *See United States v. King,*773 F.3d 48, 52 (5th Cir. 2014). Windsor does not re-urge and therefore waives his argument challenging two witness statements that bolstered the co-conspirator’s assertion. *See United States v. Pompa,*434 F.3d 800, 806 n.4 (5th Cir. 2005).

Additionally, because the methamphetamine that Windsor received from the coconspirator had been imported from Mexico, the district court did not err by applying the § 2Dl.l(b)(5) enhancement, regardless of whether he knew it was imported. *See United States v. Serfass,*684 F.3d 548, 552 (5th Cir. 2012). His contention that the importation should have to constitute relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 does not establish error in the application of the § 2Dl.l(b)(5) enhancement. *See United States v. Foulks,*747 F.3d 914, 915 (5th Cir. 2014).

Finally, Windsor’s within-guideline sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. *See Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 341, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). His argument that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors fail to account for prevailing notions of what society deems a fair sentence amounts to a general disagreement with the propriety of the sentence imposed and does not suffice to show substantive unreasonableness. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 50-51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Rodriguez,*523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2008).

The judgment of - the district court is AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0648 

_____________________________

KELLI HAMBLEN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT 

OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT 

PROGRAM, and TYRELL RASHAD 

DANIELS,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Division of Administrative Hearings.

Robert L. Kilbride, Administrative Law Judge.

March 6, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 

2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979).

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROBERTS and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Kelli Hamblen, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sarah C. Prieto, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee Department of 

Revenue.

No appearance for Appellee Tyrell Rashad Daniels.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58075-58076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24004]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7591]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Rembrandt and Degas: Two Young Artists''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Rembrandt and Degas: Two Young Artists,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Sterling and 
Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts, from on or 
about November 12, 2011, until on or about February 5, 2012, the 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about 
February 22, 2012, until on or about May 20, 2012, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

[[Page 58076]]

    Dated: September 12, 2011.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-24004 Filed 9-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00470-CV

Thanh Huu Nguyen and Anh Thi Tram Vo

v.

Joshua Kessler and Jessica Kessler

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law of Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2019-CV-0009

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellants.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 21, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                             178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5178
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           163615
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3190
<OTHER-SE>                                    (161627)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5178
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    38437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (38437)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (38437)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (38437)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           BD
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements for The Jones Financial Companies for the 3 months ended
March 27, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1998
<CASH>                                          62,466
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,018,856
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                              8,500
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                           15,324
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            247,402
<PP&E>                                         187,022
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,620,642
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,000
<PAYABLES>                                     798,883
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                             33,551
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                              14,862
<LONG-TERM>                                    264,403
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     289,620
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,620,642
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                    0
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            23,579
<COMMISSIONS>                                  256,989
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   11,374
<FEE-REVENUE>                                   26,531
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,798
<COMPENSATION>                                 184,291
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,958
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      31,958
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,958
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Total Polling Locations:

Election Day:7 110 

Early Voting:8 18 

Mail Ballots Transmitted10 Mail Ballots Returned11

214,506 183,544 (85.6% of 

transmitted) 

Mail Ballots Counted12 Mail Ballots Rejected13

183,152 (99.8% of 

returned)

392 (0.2% of returned) 

Mail Voting Policies 

No excuse is required for mail voting14

Does not conduct all-mail elections15

No permanent absentee voting list16

EAVS Jurisdictions

53

Total Registered Voters as of 

Nov. 3, 20201

-- 

Registration Forms Received2*

-- 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3*

-- 

2020 EAVS Data Brief: North Dakota

 Voter Registration

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

In-Person

Mail, Email, Fax

Other

Online

Motor Vehicle Dept.

Source of Registration Applications4

 Voter Turnout  Election Technology

In-Person 

Election 

Day Voters 

91,803

25.2%

Mail Voters 

183,161

50.3%

In-Person 

Early Voters 

87,882

24.1%

Other Mode 

1,653

0.5%

Voters Participating By Mode5

53 53 53

0 0 0

Ballot

Marking

Device

Scanner Electronic

Poll

Books

DRE w/o

VVPAT

DRE with

VVPAT

Hand

Count

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9

 Mail Balloting

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov. 

The data shown are certified as final by state election authorities. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available, ” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2018 

general election to close of 

registration for 2020 general 

election. 

1 A1a of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a. InPerson is A4b. Online is A4c. 

Motor Vehicle Dept. is A4d. 

Other is the sum of A4e–A4l. 

Denominator is A3a. 

5 In-Person Election Day Voters 

is F1b. Mail Voters is F1d+F1g. 

In-Person Early Voters is F1f. 

Other Mode is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Denominator is sum of F1b–

F1h. 

6 F1a of EAVS. Denominator 

is citizen voting age 

population (CVAP). 

7 D3a of EAVS. 

8 D4a of EAVS. 

9 F3a–d, F5a, F6a, F7a, F8a, 

and F11a of EAVS. 

10 C1a of EAVS. 

11 C1b of EAVS. 

12 C3a of EAVS. 

13 C4a of EAVS.

14Q17 of Policy Survey. 

15 Q18 and Q18a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

Turnout6 

64.2%

Note: North Dakota 

does not require 

registration and does 

not report EAVS data 

on voter registration