alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5529]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[CA-067-1230-00]


Establishment of Supplementary Rule for Use Management of 
Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area, California Desert District

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Establishment of supplementary rule.

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

SUMMARY: The primary purpose of this supplementary rule is enhancement 
of public safety in the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area. This rule 
will provide a safety zone between the heavy traffic on Gecko Road and 
those camping off the road.
    The following rule is therefore recommended:
    1. No person shall camp or park on the shoulder of Gecko Road in 
the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area except where permitted by 
posted signs. In areas where there is no obvious shoulder, no one shall 
park or camp within 10 feet of the pavement of Gecko Rd. This includes 
all portions of Gecko Road. For purposes of this rule, the shoulder of 
the road is the compacted road base that extends from the edge of the 
pavement to where it drops off and resumes the natural contour of the 
surrounding terrain.

Background

    The need for safety rules was identified during a series of public 
meetings held during preparation of the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation 
Area Management Plan, completed in 1987. Safety hazards and methods of 
reducing them were high priority planning issues identified by 
participants at the planning meetings.
    Additional safety precautions are needed to prevent accident or 
injury along Gecko Road. Visitors are parking and camping immediately 
adjacent to the road, and there is a high likelihood of accidents or 
injuries involving visitors parked or camped on the shoulder of the 
road.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective upon date of publication and will remain in 
effect until rescinded or modified by the authorized officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chief Area Ranger Robert Zimmer, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro 
Resource Area, 1661 S. 4th St., El Centro, CA 92243 (619) 337-4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The authority for this restriction is 
provided in 43 CFR 8365.1-6. Violation of this restriction is 
punishable by a fine not to exceed $100,000.00 and/or imprisonment not 
to exceed 12 months.

    Dated: February 26, 1997.
Terry Reed,
Area Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-5529 Filed 3-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-M
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8427 

To provide for certain reports on enrollment in the Lifeline program, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2020 

Mrs. LURIA (for herself, Ms. SPANBERGER, and Mr. RIGGLEMAN) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for certain reports on enrollment in the Lifeline 

program, 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 ‘‘Ensuring Phone and 

5 Internet Access for SNAP Recipients Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPORTS ON ENROLLMENT IN LIFELINE PROGRAM. 

7 (a) ANNUAL REPORT ON ENROLLMENT IN LIFELINE

8 PROGRAM BY SNAP PARTICIPANTS.—Not later than 1 

9 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and each 

10 year thereafter, the Commission, in consultation with the 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8427 IH

1 Secretary of Agriculture, shall submit to Congress a report 

2 on enrollment in the Lifeline program by individuals par3 ticipating in the supplemental nutrition assistance pro4 gram established under the Food and Nutrition Act of 

5 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.). 

6 (b) STUDY AND REPORT ON ENROLLMENT IN LIFE7 LINE PROGRAM.—Not later than 1 year after the date of 

8 the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall conduct 

9 a study and submit to Congress a report on— 

10 (1) projections of the number of new broadband 

11 service consumers who will join the Lifeline program 

12 through Federal assistance programs during the 5- 

13 year period following the conclusion of the study; 

14 and 

15 (2) the efficacy of various efforts to advertise 

16 the Lifeline program, including data illustrating the 

17 effect of such efforts on enrollment in such program. 

18 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

19 (1) BROADBAND SERVICE.—The term 

20 ‘‘broadband service’’ has the meaning given the term 

21 ‘‘broadband internet access service’’ in section 8.1(b) 

22 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any suc23 cessor regulation. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8427 IH

1 (2) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ 

2 means the Federal Communications Commission. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 32c

       Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

      I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Electric
and Gas Company, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Annual Report
of Public Service Electric and Gas Company on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Public Service Electric and Gas Company.

                                    /s/ E. James Ferland
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                    E. James Ferland
                                    Public Service Electric and Gas Company
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    February 27, 2006
# C_2021128EN.01004702.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/47

---

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Kampete v Council

(Case T-110/21)

(2021/C 128/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in the annex to that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in the annex to that decision;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in the annex to that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in the annex to that regulation;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/21, Boshab v Council.

---
# C_2021138EN.01004002.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/40

---

Action brought on 29 January 2021 — GGEW v Commission

(Case T-62/21)

(2021/C 138/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GGEW, Gruppen-Gas- und Elektrizitätswerk Bergstraße AG (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16);

| — | order the defendant to produce the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to produce the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant’s lawyers’ and travel costs incurred as a result of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant’s lawyers’ and travel costs incurred as a result of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-53/21, EVH v Commission.

---
Order entered June 15, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00943-CR

No. 05-14-00944-CR

CHARLES EVERAGE DOYAL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 199-80146-2014, 199-80147-2014

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeals.

On April 29, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the 

appeals; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court-appointed counsel Mitchell Nolte; (3) 

counsel’s explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is his workload; and (4) appellant’s 

brief will be filed by June 21, 2015.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief by FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 2015. Because appellant 

has already been granted on thirty-day extension of time to file the brief and the brief is now four 

months overdue, no further extensions will be granted.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
# C_2022368EN.01002102.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/21

---

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 2 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — EF, GH, IJ v KL

(Case C-13/22) (1)

(2022/C 368/37)

Language of the case: Romanian

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 3, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-271 Lower Tribunal Nos. F07-39881B; F07-39883

________________ 

### Miguel Benitez, Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge. Miguel Benitez, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Sims v. State, 286 So. 3d 292, 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (holding that State v. Lewars, 259 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 2018) does not apply retroactively); Hutchins v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2582 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 18, 2020).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                      13,737,692
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  311,486
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     18,625
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,674,798
<PP&E>                                       8,577,720
<DEPRECIATION>                                 594,053
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,881,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          993,169
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,885,160
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,806,767
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,881,843
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,080
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,067
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               796,268
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,350,707)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,324,104)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,324,104)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### R E T A I L I N S I T E

R ON 

### P EPPER March 21, 2012

12264 E L C AM I N O R E A L  S U I T E 220  S A N D I E G O

, CA 92130-3061

M 8 58 .5 23 .2 09 0  F 8 5 8.5 2 3 .20 9 5

C:\Users\jhenry.SDBUSINESS\AppData\Local\Microsoft\ Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\AT 6XO85W\SAN_DC Letter of Support_Alaska

Airlines.doc The Honorable Ray LaHood U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Alaska Airlines’ application for SAN-DCA, Dock et No. DOT-OST-2012-0029.

Dear Secretary LaHood:

Retail Insite fully supports the application of Ala ska Airlines for air service between San Diego and Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA). San Diego is the la rgest region without direct service to DCA. Additionally, due to the profound community of interest between San Diego and the nation’s capit al, the region generates the largest passenger market demand without nonstop service to the convenie nt and close-in airport serving our nation’s capitol

.

San Diego’s sheer market size to Washington coupled with the fact that San Diego to Dulles average air fares are the highest of west coast cities, should qualify for th e limited slots available for this flight. The high airfare is exacerbated when factoring in taxi fares from Dulles to Washing ton’s city center that average about $60 each way. This means travelers between Washington’s city center and San Diego via Dulles can pay on average close to $400 o ne-way.

There are also countless other San Diego-based and W ashington-based businesses that are engaged in heal th science, telecommunications, and national defense t hat need quick and convenient access to Reagan Nati onal Airport. Retail Insite has an immediate need for a dditional nonstop air service to our nation’s capit al. Alaska Airlines service would add a needed nonstop option to a prim ary gateway to Washington, DC. Retail Insite joins with the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the San Di ego Regional Economic Development Corporation, the World Trade Center San Diego, and the San Diego Regional C hamber of Commerce in support of Alaska Airlines’ application for San Diego – Washington Reagan Natio nal slots.

We thank the Department of Transportation for the o pportunity to comment on the above referenced docke t and we hope to hear of a favorable review of Alaska Airlin es’ San Diego – DCA proposal soon.

Sincerely,

RETAIL INSITE

Commercial Real Estate

Ron Pepper | **California DRE Lic. 00865929** 858.523.2085 | **rpepper@retailinsite.net**
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. KEVIN FUQUA,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10278

D.C . No. 4:14-c r-00287-JD-1

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Ja m e s Dona

to, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 16, 2016 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, B ER ZON, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc u it Judge s. Ke vin Fuqua (“ Fuqua ” ) a pp eals his c onvic tion unde r 18 U.S.C

. § 922(g)(1). W e a ffirm

. 

# F IL ED
JAN 03 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r o pr iate for public a tion a nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T h e p an el u n an i m ously c onc l ud es t h i s cas e i s s ui tab l e f o r d eci s i o n without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).On a

ppe a l, Fuqua pre se n ts a n a rgum e nt for sup p re ssing e vide nc e i n his c a se tha t he did not ra ise be fore the distric t c ourt. B y n ot ra ising i t b e low, Fuqua ha s
wa ive d the a rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R

. C rim

. P. 12(b)(3)(C ). Fuqua ha s not s hown why he should be gra nte d re lie f from his wa i ve r. W hile inte rve ning c ha nge s i n l aw m a y provide grounds for suc h re lie f, c ontra ry to Fuqua ’ s a rgum e nt, Unite d State s v . J ame s , 810 F.3d 676 (9th C ir. 2016), d oe s not re pre se n t a n inte rve n ing c ha n ge in p e rtine nt Fourth Am e ndm e n t

la w. Eve n i f Fuqua did not wa ive this a rgum e nt, the p olic e offic e rs’ c onduc t he re did not viola te the Fourth A m e ndm e nt. Fuqua wa s not se i z e d whe n offic e rs knoc ke d on the window of t

h e c a r he wa s s le e ping i n, woke him in the proc e ss, a nd a ske d to spe a k with him

. Se e Unite d State s v . W ashington , 490 F.3d 765, 770 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              13
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       73
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4
<INVENTORY>                                         11
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   138
<PP&E>                                             383
<DEPRECIATION>                                     218
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     663
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              157
<BONDS>                                            349
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                          45
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       663
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   382
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    62
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      5
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  4
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         4
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

MICHAEL J. CHUTZ

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 4 9 DB 2019 (No. 44 RST 2019)

Attorney Registration No. 48529

( Allegheny County )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4 th day of June

, 201 9 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated May 2 3 , 2019 , is approved and it is ORDERED that

Michael J. Chutz

, who has been on Administrative Suspension

, has never been

suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that h e has the moral qualifications,

competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth,

shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this

Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing

of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5474]


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

NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM


National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee

AGENCY: National Communications System (NCS).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: A meeting of the President's National Security 
Telecommunications Advisory Committee will be held on Tuesday, March 
18, 1997, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. The Business Session will be held 
at the Department of State, 2101 C Street NW, Washington, DC. The 
Executive Session will be held at the Department of Treasury, 15th and 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The agenda is as follows:

--Call to Order/Welcoming Remarks
--Manager's Report
--IES Report of Activities
--Information Assurance Task Force Report
--National Information Infrastructure Task Force Report
--Network Security Group Report
--Global Information Infrastructure and Information Assurance Topics
--Adjournment

    Due to the potential requirement to discuss classified information, 
in conjunction with the issues listed above, the meeting will be closed 
to the public in the interest of National Defense.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Telephone (703) 607-6221 or write the Manager, 
National Communications System, 701 S. Court House Rd., Arlington, VA 
22204-2198.
Dennis Bodson,
Chief, Technology and Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-5474 Filed 3-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-03-M
No. D-2644.

#### In re Disbarment of Abramowitz.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 566 U. S. 932.]
No. 11-10113.

#### Micolo *v.*New York.

Sup. Ct. N. Y., Suffolk County. Certiorari denied.