alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 14407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7613]


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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Monticello 
Site

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) notice is hereby given of the 
following Advisory Board Committee Meeting: Environmental Management 
Site-Specific Advisory Board, Monticello Site.

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, April 15, 1997, 7:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: San Juan County Courthouse, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 117 
South Main, Monticello, Utah 84535.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Berry, Public Affairs 
Specialist, Department of Energy Grand Junction Projects Office, P.O. 
Box 2567, Grand Junction, CO, 81502 (303) 248-7727.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to advise DOE and 
its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste 
management, and related activities.
    Tentative Agenda: Update on Millsite remediation; noise, lights, 
and dust issues; reports from subcommittees on local training and 
hiring, health and safety, and future land use.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to 
agenda items should contact Audrey Berry's office at the address or 
telephone number listed above. Requests must be received 5 days prior 
to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the 
presentation in the agenda. The Designated Federal Official is 
empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the 
orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public 
comment will be provided a maximum of 5 minutes to present their 
comments.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available by writing 
to Audrey Berry, Department of Energy Grand Junction Projects Office, 
P.O. Box 2567, Grand Junction, CO 81502, or by calling her at (303) 
248-7727.

    Issued at Washington, DC on March 21, 1997.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Acting Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-7613 Filed 3-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
No. 11-9933.

#### Coleman *v.*Cox, Director, Nevada Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### City of Lenexa v. Bell

105,874

05/20/13

Denied.

Unpublished
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 12853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6813]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-33,207]


Gruen Marketing Corporation Exeter, Pennsylvania; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on February 18, 1997 in response to a worker petition 
which was filed on behalf of workers and former workers at Gruen 
Marketing Corporation, located in Exeter, Pennsylvania (TA-W-33,207).
    On February 26, 1997, the Department of Labor issued a 
determination on behalf of the petitioning group of workers at Gruen 
Marketing Corporation, located in Exeter, Pennsylvania (TA-W-33,216). 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of February 1997.
Russell T. Kile,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-6813 Filed 3-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
# Table 10.19

# RSE 10.19
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         291,282                 416,143
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,935,864               3,332,971
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,131,723               2,565,555
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,661,836               6,723,998
<PP&E>                                      18,317,448              17,807,284
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,535,920               6,249,629
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,116,648              20,986,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,544,113               6,779,754
<BONDS>                                      3,837,172               4,001,939
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,735,363              10,205,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,116,648              20,986,810
<SALES>                                     13,968,250              15,883,910
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,051,668              15,988,828
<CGS>                                       13,308,066              14,888,689
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,455,425              15,962,176
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             156,231                 175,415
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (403,757)                  26,652
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)                    0.02
        

</TABLE>
#### JAMES WOMACK *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 34874)

Bear, Sheldon and Schaller, Js.

Argued March 3—

officially released March 25, 2014

Petitioner’s appeal from the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland, *Cobb, J.*

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
S95A0421.

#### PARKER v. ROLLINS.

(455 SE2d 838)

Hunstein, Justice.

Conley Eugene Rollins filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting, inter alia, the ground that his plea of guilty to armed robbery and concealing the death of another was not knowingly and vol*355untarily entered. The habeas court, after reviewing the guilty plea transcript, granted the petition solely on this ground, concluding that it could not determine what was the factual basis for the plea, see Uniform Superior Court Rule 33.9,1 although the habeas court was “convinced from the remarks made by the trial court at the time of the plea that the trial judge was very familiar with the facts of the case.”

Decided April 17, 1995.

*Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior*
      *356
      *Assistant Attorney General, Rachelle L. Strausner, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellant.

*355We have recently considered USCR 33.9. See *State v. Evans,*265 Ga. 332 (454 SE2d 468) (1995); see also *Green v. State,*265 Ga. 263 (454 SE2d 466) (1995). We held in *Evans*that USCR 33.9 is mandatory, as opposed to permissive, and that its purpose “is to insure that the conduct to which an individual admits actually constitutes the crime to which the individual pleads guilty.” *Green,*supra at 264. While we recognized in *Evans*that it is the better practice for a trial court to establish the factual basis for a plea through a colloquy with the defendant on the record of the guilty plea transcript, we held that USCR 33.9 also permits a trial court

> to learn the factual basis from material contained in parts of the record other than the guilty plea hearing so long as the trial court makes clear on the plea hearing record that he is relying on those parts of the record and so long as those parts of the record are made a part of the record for appeal. [Cits.] In such an event, the record of the guilty plea hearing would show the trial court’s awareness of the factual basis of the plea.

*Evans,*supra at 335. In the event the record does not adequately demonstrate the factual basis in the ways discussed in Division 2 of *Evans,*this Court held that the propriety of the guilty plea must then be examined in light of the manifest injustice test as discussed in Division 3 of *Evans.*

We remand this case to the habeas court with direction that it consider this case in light of our recent holdings in *Evans*and *Green,*supra.

*Case remanded with direction.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*356Conley Eugene Rollins, *pro se.*

USCR 33.9 provides:

Notwithstanding the acceptance of a plea of guilty, the judge should not enter a judgment upon such plea without making such inquiry on the record as may satisfy him that there is a factual basis for the plea.
#### State v. Campbell

111,471

02/09/2016

Denied. ..

Unpubhshed
U.S. Energy Information Administration Quarterly Coal Report, October - December 2023

Table 19. Average price of U.S. coal imports

(dollars per short ton)

Year to date

Continent and country

of origin

October - December

2023

July - September

2023

October - December

2022 2023 2022

Percent

change

North America Total 238.15 241.05 212.96 253.75 151.47 67.5

Canada 238.29 241.17 213.73 254.18 151.35 67.9

Mexico 66.10 94.95 177.17 149.42 178.12 -16.1

South America Total 109.66 105.16 105.55 111.17 99.18 12.1

Colombia 101.69 99.25 101.51 104.79 98.23 6.7

Peru 183.58 205.56 224.41 203.32 224.41 -9.4

Europe Total 75.22 176.90 348.32 176.86 387.39 -54.3

Belgium - - 364.12 - 364.12 -

France - - - - 75.00 -

Germany, Federal

Republic of

75.22 - - 75.22 - -

Ireland - 176.90 320.50 176.90 320.50 -44.8

Spain - - - - 533.41 -

United Kingdom - - - 1,633.50 - -

Asia Total 103.47 88.90 102.90 102.45 100.88 1.6

China 104.71 88.90 102.90 102.79 110.17 -6.7

Indonesia - - - - 86.07 -

Japan 65.95 - - 65.95 - -

Africa Total 1,818.00 249.48 - 266.39 240.41 10.8

South Africa 1,818.00 249.48 - 266.39 240.41 10.8

U.S. Total* 137.86 143.34 141.73 144.79 118.04 22.7

* U.S. Total is the average price of all coal imports.

- = No data reported.

Note: Average price is based on the customs import value, including value for shipments of specialty coal not used as a fuel source (about 0.05 percent of all shipments).

Customs import value is the price paid for merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States, excluding U.S. import duties, freight, insurance, and other

charges incured in bringing the merchandise to the United States. Coal imports include coal to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Total may not equal sum of

components because of independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 'Monthly Report IM 145.'
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7099]



[[Page 13357]]

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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[WA59-7134b; FRL-5708-4]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: 
Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Washington for the purpose of 
revising Regulations II and III of the Puget Sound Air Pollution 
Control Agency (PSAPCA) Regulations. The SIP revision was submitted by 
the State to satisfy certain Federal Clean Air Act requirements. In the 
Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the 
State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal 
because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment 
and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the 
approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments 
are received in response to this proposed rule, no further activity is 
contemplated in relation to this rule. If the EPA receives adverse 
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public 
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on 
this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period 
on this action.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
April 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Montel Livingston, 
Environmental Protection Specialist (OAQ-107), Office of Air Quality, 
at the EPA Regional Office listed below. Copies of the documents 
relevant to this proposed rule are available for public inspection 
during normal business hours at the following locations. The interested 
persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment 
with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 1200 
6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
The State of Washington, Department of Ecology, 300 Desmond Drive, 
Lacey, Washington 98504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Montel Livingston, Office of Air 
Quality (OAQ-107), EPA, (206) 553-6985.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct 
Final action which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: February 24, 1997.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-7099 Filed 3-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### State v. Gassett

113,594

03/31/2016

Denied.

Unpubhshed
No. 12-5745.

#### Cowan *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7139** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. BRYAN KEITH UMBERGER, a/k/a Brian Keith Umberger , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States D istrict Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News . Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 4:07

- cr - 00012

- MSD

- TEM

- 1; 4:09

- cv - 00153

- JBF )

Submitted : January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY , Circuit Judg es.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Bryan Keith Umberger, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine Elizabeth Wolfe, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this c ircuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bryan Keith Umberger seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisf ies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (20 03). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S . at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Umberger has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### State v. Jones

111,386

02/18/2016

Denied.

Unpublished
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 44013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17829]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

[Docket ID: DoD-2013-OS-0211]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, 
the following proposal for collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 
28, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Automated Repatriation 
Reporting System; DD Form 2585; OMB Control Number 0704-0334.
    Type of Request: Revision.
    Number of Respondents: 100.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 100.
    Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 33.
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
for personnel accountability of all evacuees, regardless of 
nationality, who are processed through designated Repatriation Centers 
throughout the United States. The information obtained from the DD Form 
2585 is entered into an automated system; a series of reports is 
accessible to DoD Components, Federal and State agencies and Red Cross 
as required.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households; Federal government.
    Frequency: One time.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of 
Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD Information Management 
Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, 
VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: July 24, 2014.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2014-17829 Filed 7-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
No. 12-5636.

#### Maytubby *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7199

DANIEL E. FELIX,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-97-1332-AM, CA-97-1360-AM)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: April 5, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel E. Felix, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s orders are marked as “filed”

on July 6 and August 26, 1998, the district court’s records show

that they were entered on the docket sheet on July 9 and August 27,

1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket

sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s

decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-25 (4th Cir.

1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Daniel E. Felix seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998), and his motion for reconsideration. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Felix’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See Felix v. Angelone, Nos. CA-97-1332-AM;

CA-97-1360-AM (E.D. Va. July 9 & Aug. 27, 1998).* We deny Felix’s

motion for the appointment of counsel and dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 11-952.

#### Pennsylvania *v.*Banks.

Sup. Ct. Pa. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pau-peris*granted. Certiorari denied.