alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2445-2446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1010]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Bureau of Consular Affairs
[Public Notice 2702]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; 
Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Application 
for Passport by Mail (DSP-82).

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

SUMMARY: The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. 
The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in 
the Federal Register preceding submission to OMB. This process is 
conducted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    The following summarizes the information collection proposal 
submitted to OMB:
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Orginating Office: Bureau of Consular Affairs.
    Title of Information Collection: Application for Passport by Mail.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Form Number: (DSP-82).
    Respondents: Individuals who are eligible to apply for a United 
States passport by mail.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,700,000.
    Average Hours Per Response: 15 minutes.
    Total Estimated Burden: 425,000.
    Public comments are being solicited to permit the agency to--
    <bullet> Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is 
necessary for the proper performance of the agency functions.
    <bullet> Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection.
    <bullet> Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected.
    <bullet> Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, 
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of technology.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Comments regarding the collection listed in this notice or requests for

[[Page 2446]]

copies of the proposed collection and supporting documents should be 
directed to Charles S. Cunningham, Directives Management Branch, U.S. 
Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, (202) 647-0596.

    Dated: December 23, 1997.
Glen H. Johnson,
Chief Information Officer, Acting.
[FR Doc. 98-1010 Filed 1-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-M
#### COM. v. MOATE, V.

1011 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/14/2017

CP-12-CR-0000040-2014

(Cameron)

Affirmed
|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                              
|View History:                                                               
|                                                                            
|No chart available.                                                         
|No chart available.                                                         
|                                                                            
|                                                                            
|Michigan Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed from Natural Gas  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | -      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Lane Co # 5, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), I, John D. Lane,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto the best of my
knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





January
      12, 2009
            /s/ John D. LaneJohn
      D. Lane, PresidentPrincipal
      Executive OfficerPrincipal
      Financial Officer
S95A1237.

#### BURNS v. THE STATE.

(462 SE2d 622)

Sears, Justice.

The appellant, Frankie Burns, was arrested for murder and armed robbery in January 1993. In May 1994 Burns filed a demand for a speedy trial pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-171. On January 20, 1995, Burns, who has been incarcerated since his arrest, filed a motion contending that he was entitled to be acquitted on the charges filed against him because the state had failed to comply with his demand for a speedy trial within the time required by § 17-7-171 (b) and because the state’s delay in bringing him to trial violated the speedy trial protections of the United States and Georgia constitutions. The trial court denied the motion, and Burns filed this appeal.1 We affirm.

We find no merit to Burns’s demand for acquittal under § 17-7-171 (b), as Burns did not satisfy the statutory requirement that, at some point during the first two regular terms of court following the filing of his demand, he be “present in court announcing ready for trial and requesting a trial on the indictment.”2 Although Burns’s *764case did not appear on a trial calendar during the first two regular terms following the term in which the demand was filed, Burns was nevertheless required to comply with the foregoing statutory requirement either through his own actions or those of his attorney.3 Moreover, having considered the appropriate factors, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Burns’s constitutional right to a speedy trial has not been violated.4 5Finally, as for Burns’s contention that his pre-trial incarceration amounts to an unconstitutional punishment under the rationale of *Bell v. Wolfish,*441 U. S. 520 (99 SC 1861, 60 LE2d 447) (1979), we note that this issue was not raised below and may not be raised for the first time on appeal.5

Decided October 16, 1995.

*Cook, Noell, Tolley & Wiggins, Edward D. Tolley, Ronald E. Houser,*for appellant.

*Harry N. Gordon, District Attorney, Richard L. Dickson, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General,*for ap-pellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 Although the order denying Burns’s motion for acquittal was interlocutory, the order is directly appealable. *Boseman v. State,*263 Ga. 730, n. 1 (438 SE2d 626) (1994).

2

 OCGA § 17-7-171 (b). See *Rice v. State,*264 Ga. 846 (452 SE2d 492) (1995); *Smith v. State,*261 Ga. 298, 299, n. 3 (404 SE2d 115) (1991); *Dennis v. Grimes,*216 Ga. 671, 672-673 (3) (118 SE2d 923) (1961).

3

*Smith,*261 Ga. at 299, n. 3; *Dennis,*216 Ga. at 672-673.

4

*Barker v. Wingo,*407 U. S. 514, 530 (92 SC 2182, 33 LE2d 101) (1972); *Boseman v. State,*263 Ga. at 731-732 (1); *Brown v. State,*264 Ga. 803, 805 (2) (450 SE2d 821) (1994).

5

*Tanthongsack v. State,*265 Ga. 88 (1) (453 SE2d 468) (1995).
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 18897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10089]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-335-000]


Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

April 10, 1998.
    Take notice that on April 6, 1998, Colorado Interstate Gas Company 
(CIG), Post Office Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, filed a 
request with the Commission in Docket No. CP98-335-000, pursuant to 
Sections 157.205, and 157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the 
Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to increase capacity at a 
delivery facility authorized in blanket certificate issued in Docket 
No. CP83-21-000, all as more fully set forth in the request on file 
with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    CIG states that on January 27, 1998, it filed a prior notice, in 
Docket No. CP98-207-000, for a new delivery facility to be located 
within CIG's Kit Carson Compressor Station in Cheyenne County, 
Colorado. The filing was noticed on February 3, 1998 and there were no 
protests. The proposed delivery facility filed for on January 27, 1998, 
consisted of a two-inch meter run and appurtenant facilities at an 
estimated cost of $8,000. CIG further states that Union Pacific Fuels, 
Inc., has now determined they will need a four-inch meter run and 
appurtenant facilities with the associated increase in capacity at this 
location. CIG reports that the estimated cost of the revised facility 
would be $10,500.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after the 
Commission has issued this notice, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or 
notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If 
no protest is filed within the allowed time, the proposed activity 
shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time 
allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn 
within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant 
request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant 
to Section 7 of the NGA.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-10089 Filed 4-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

A N I M A L L E G A L D E F E

N S E F U N D , Plaintiff-Appellant ,

v.
U.S. F O O D & D R

U G A D M I N I S T R A T I O N , Defendant-Appellee. No. 13-17131
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-04376-EDL

OPI NI ON

On Remand from the En B anc Court
F iled September 30, 2016

B e fore: Susan P. Graber, Kim McL ane W ardlaw, and Mary H. Murg u ia, Circuit J udg es. Per Curiam OpinionAL DF V. USF DA

2
SUMMARY *

F reedom of

Inf orm a tion Act
On r emand from the en banc court, the panel reviewed de
novo the district court’s summary judg ment in a F reedom o f I nformation Act case, concluded that there was a g enuine issue of materia l fact, and reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceeding s.

COUNSEL
Monte M.F

. Cooper, Derek F

. Knerr , a nd Scott L indlaw, Orrick, Herring ton & Sutcliffe L L P, Menlo Park, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

L indsey Powell and Michael S. Raab, Attorney s, Appella t e S taff, Civil Division, Department o f J u stice, W ashing t o n , D.C.; for Defendant-Appellee.
C a i tlin Z ittkowski and Cristina R. Stella, San F rancisco, California, as and for Amicus Curiae Center for F ood Safety

.

* T h is su m m ary co n stitu

tes n o p art o f th e o pin io n o f th e co urt. It h as b een p rep ared b y

co urt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.AL DF V. USF DA 3
OP INION
PER CURI AM:
I n Animal Legal Defense Fun d v

. FDA , No. 13-17131, 2016 W L 4578362 (9th Cir. Sept. 2 , 2016) (en banc) (per curiam), the en banc court o verruled our earlier precedents on the applicable standard of r eview in F reedom of I n formation Act (“F OI A ”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, c a s e s d ecided on summary judg ment. T he court held tha t the usual summary judg ment standard applie s , s o we must review the district court’s decision de n ovo. A c c o r ding ly , on summary judg ment, “if there are g enuine issues of material fact in a F OI A c ase, the d i s trict court should proceed to a bench trial or adversa r y hearing

. ” Animal Legal D ef. Fund , 2 016 W L 4578362, at *2.
As we noted in o ur earlier o pinion, Animal Legal Defense Fund v. FDA , 819 F .3d 1102, 1108–09 ( 9th Cir. 2016), the parties submitted competing declarations c o ncerning the potential competitive effect of releasing e g g -production information. I n a per curiam concurrence, we also observed th a t, “if ordinary principles applied, summary judg ment would not be appropri a t e b e cause the record contains a disputed issue of m a t e r i a l fact.” Id. at 1112. F ollowing the
en banc court’s decision, those ordinary principles n ow control this case. Ap p l y ing the usual summary judg ment standard, we conclude that there is a g enuine issue of material fa c t in this case and, therefore, we must reverse and remand to the district court for further proceeding s.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 60210 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. OSVALDO TORRES

- SOSA , also known as Roberto Magallon

- Salgado,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:13

- CR

- 23

- 3

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * Osvaldo Torres

- Sosa pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to
possess ion with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine

. He argues that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(D) and deprive d him of due process by failing to advise him at rearraignment that he had the right to appointed counsel if he could not afford an attorney to replace his retained counsel.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 7, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-60210 Document: 00514632516 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2018No. 15

- 60210

2 Because Torres

- Sosa did not object to any error under Rule 11, plain error review applies to the issue of whether the district c ourt violated Rule 11(b)(1)(D). See United States v. Vonn , 535 U.S. 55, 59

- 62 (2002). A Rule 11 violation is harmless error unless it affects a defendant’s substantial rights. Id. at 58; Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h ). To obtain a reversal of his conviction based on plain error under Rule 11(b)(1)(D) , Torres

- Sosa “must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he wo uld not have entered the plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004)

. Any error under Rule 11(b)(1)(D) did not affect T orres - Sosa’s substantial rights. He was advised of his right to appointed counsel during his initial

a ppearance, received appointed counsel before obtaining retained counsel , advised the court at rearrai gnment, before pleading guilty, that he wished to proceed with his retained counsel and had no complaints about counsel’s representation , and thereafter waived his trial rights, admitted his guilt, and stated that he was voluntarily pleading guilty and acc epting the plea agreement

. See Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. at 83

. Given those circumstances, as well as the absence of any assertion by Torres

- Sosa that he was unable to pay his current retained counsel, there also was no denial of any right of Torres

- So sa to counsel of his choice, no abuse of discretion in the denial of retained counsel’s motion to withdraw, and no abuse of discretion under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c). See United States v. Austin , 812 F.3d 453, 45 5

- 5 6 (5th Cir. 2016)

. AFFIRMED. Case: 15-60210 Document: 00514632516 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2018
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 10

                               CONSENT OF COUNSEL


                                      107
<PAGE>

                                  [LETTERHEAD]

                                  July 7, 2003

The Navellier Performance Funds
One East Liberty, Third Floor
Reno, NV  89501

     Re:  The Navellier Performance Funds N-1A
          Post-Effective Amendment No. 24 and 25
          File No. 033-63155
          File No. 811-08995

Gentlemen:

     I have acted as counsel to The Navellier Performance Funds in connection
with the preparation of the initial Registration Statement on Form N-1A and all
Post-Effective Amendments for filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, covering shares of common stock at no par value, of the Fund.

     I hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of my December 7, 1995
Opinion and Consent as an Exhibit to Post-Effective Amendment No. 26 to the
Registration Statement of the Fund to be filed July 7, 2003 and to the reference
of my name in the Prospectus included in the Registration Statement and to the
filing of this opinion as an exhibit to any application made by or on behalf of
the Fund or any Distributor or dealer in connection with the registration and
qualification of the Fund or its common stock under the securities laws of any
state or jurisdiction. In giving such permission, I do not admit hereby that I
come within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of
the Securities Act of 1933 or the rules and regulations of the Securities and
Exchange Commission thereunder.

                                            Very truly yours,

                                            LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL KORNHAUSER

                                            By: /s/ Samuel Kornhauser
                                            Samuel Kornhauser

                                      108
# C_2019117EN.01000101.xml

| 29.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9302 — Carlyle/TA Associates/Weiman)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 117/01)

On 18 March 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9302. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9302. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 103 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 103

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor 
    Relations Board relating to representation election procedures.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2012

    Mr. Gingrey of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Kline, Mr. Rooney, Mr. 
 Westmoreland, Mr. Jones, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Long, Mr. Nunnelee, Mr. 
 Huizenga of Michigan, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Paul, Mr. Burton of Indiana, 
 Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Lankford, Mr. 
 Coble, Mr. Canseco, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Latta, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Duncan of 
 South Carolina, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mrs. Black, Mr. Yoder, 
  Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. Cole, Mr. 
 Culberson, Mr. Ribble, Mr. Walsh of Illinois, Mr. Quayle, Mr. Brooks, 
Mr. Conaway, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. 
  Walberg, Mr. Olson, Mr. Akin, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mrs. Roby, Mr. 
Landry, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Carter, Mr. Gowdy, 
    Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Mr. Harris, Mr. Mack, Mr. Stivers, Mr. 
Bucshon, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Kingston, Mr. 
Womack, Mr. Austria, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Pompeo, 
 Mr. Pearce, and Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia) introduced the following 
joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor 
    Relations Board relating to representation election procedures.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to 
representation election procedures (published at 76 Fed. Reg. 80138 
(December 22, 2011)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```