alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
19368 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Notices

1Editorial Note: The December notice was

published on December 15, 1997.

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS

ADMINISTRATION

General Records Schedule (GRS) 20

AGENCY: National Archives and Records

Administration.

ACTION: Notice regarding General

Records Schedule (GRS) 20.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Order

of the United States District Court for

the District of Columbia, dated April 9,

1998, in Public Citizen v. Carlin, Civil

No. 96–2840, the Archivist of the United

States issues the following statement:

Notices previously published by the

Archivist in the Federal Register on

December 16,1 1997, 62 Fed. Reg.

65737–65738, and January 14, 1998, 63

Fed. Reg. 2268, which stated that

disposition practices for electronic

records are ‘‘currently authorized under

the National Archives and Records

Administration’s General Records

Schedule 20 (‘GRS 20’),’’ should have

instead stated that GRS 20 has been

declared null and void by the United

States District Court for the District of

Columbia.

The government has filed an appeal of

the Court’s declaratory judgment, but

GRS–20 remains null and void pending

resolution of that appeal. All federal

agencies are advised that when

submitting agency schedules to NARA

for approval, electronic versions of

records created on office automation

applications should be scheduled in

accordance with paragraph 5 of NARA

Bulletin 98–02. NARA is currently

working to develop an alternative

approach to GRS–20 for the disposition

of records created on word processing

and electronic mail applications and has

formed an interagency Electronic

Records Work Group, consisting of

select NARA staff, Federal records

officers, and information management

specialists, with oversight by the Deputy

Archivist of the United States. The

Work Group is to have

recommendations to the Archivist by

July 1 and an implementation plan by

September 30, 1998. The Court has

authorized the Archivist to state that a

federal agency may continue to follow

its present disposition practices for

electronic records until: (1) September

30, 1998; (2) the agency has submitted

and received approval from NARA on a

Request for Records Disposition

Authority; (3) notification by NARA that

the appeal has been resolved and NARA

has provided further guidance as a

result of the appellate court’s decision;

or (4) further Order of the District Court.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Miller, Modern Records

Program (NWM), National Archives and

Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi

Road, College Park, MD 20740–6001,

(301) 713–7110. NARA Bulletin 98–02

is available on NARA’s web site at

<http://www.nara.gov/records/grs20/

bltn-grs.html>. Further information

about the Electronic Records Work

Group is available at <http://

www.nara.gov/records/grs20/

index.html>.

Dated: April 14, 1998.

John W. Carlin,

Archivist of the United States.

[FR Doc. 98–10263 Filed 4–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

GEORGE P. CADORET, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2011-7143 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in case no. 09-1531, Judge Mary J. 

Schoelen. 

__________________________ 

Before DYK, SCHALL, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. 

O R D E R 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

FOR THE COURT

May 10, 2012

Date 

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

cc: Kenneth M. Carpenter, Esq. 

Renee Gerber, Esq.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132087(60) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, THERESA BAILEY, a/k/a THERESA LONG, Justices 

Individually and as Personal Representative 

of the Estate of CHRISTAL BAILEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 132087 

 COA: 267546 
 Wayne CC: 04-411504-NH

SETHAVARANGURA PORNPICHIT, M.D., 

a/k/a PORNPICHIT SETHAVARANGURA, 

M.D., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 17, 

2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0114 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 22, 2008 

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20423-20424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10915]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[CA-320-1020-00]


Notice of Resource Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Northeast California Resource 
Advisory Council, Susanville, California, Interior.


[[Page 20424]]


ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committees 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(Pub. L. 94-579), the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Northeast 
California Resource Advisory Council will meet Tuesday and Wednesday, 
June 9 and 10, 1998, at the Bureau of Land Management's Alturas Field 
Office, 708 West 12th St., Alturas, CA.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Tuesday, June 9, the council will convene 
at 10 a.m. at the parking area for the Lassen National Forest's Hat 
Creek Ranger District, 43225 East Highway 299, Fall River Mills, CA, 
then depart for a field tour to the Beaver Creek and Pit River areas. 
Field discussions will include implementation of Standards for Healthy 
Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing; and land tenure 
adjustments in the Alturas Field Office's area of responsibility. On 
Wednesday, June 10, the council will convene at 8 a.m. for a business 
meeting at the BLM's Alturas Field Office, 708 West 12th St., Alturas, 
CA.
    Agenda items include wild horse and burro management, an update on 
the Automated Lands and Minerals Records System, a fire planning 
update, an update on recreation fees, and reports from the BLM's Eagle 
Lake, Alturas and Surprise field managers. The meeting is open to the 
public. Public comments will be taken at 1 p.m. Wednesday. Members of 
the public are also welcome on the field tour, but they must provide 
their own transportation and lunch.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Contact Jeff Fontana, public affairs 
officer, at (530) 257-5381.
Linda D. Hansen,
Eagle Lake Field Manager.
[FR Doc. 98-10915 Filed 4-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
No. 12-5837.

#### Tinsley, Personal Representative of the Estate of Tinsley *v.*Genesis HealthCare Corp.

Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7168

ROBERT L. CHEEK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HAROLD J. BENDER,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CA-95-410-3-MU)

Submitted: March 10, 1998 Decided: April 20, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Cheek, Appellant Pro Se. E. Fitzgerald Parnell, III,

POYNER & SPRUILL, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration in his legal malpractice action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Cheek v. Bender, No. CA-95-410-3-

MU (W.D.N.C. July 10, 1997). We 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.

AFFIRMED
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20 - 0215

_________________ CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOHN RAY ADAMS,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant t o the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Robert L. Deschamps, III , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 13 2021

10/13/2021
Case Number: DA 20-0215
# C_2019123EN.01000402.xml

| 2.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9049 — E.ON/Clever/UFC Scandinavia JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 123/08)

On 12 November 2018, 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 32018M9049. 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 32018M9049. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
#### IN the INTEREST OF: L.L., a minor, Appeal of: S.L.

159 WDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/07/2017

CP-02-AP-0000101-2016 (Allegheny)

Affirmed
Eir a NAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 20-0526 

RANDALL CHILDRESS and CLAUDIA 

CHILDRESS, 

131 intiffs, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants, 

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, 

Defendant, Appellant, and Cross-Appellee. 

r LED 

pus 3 1 2021 

ilia°cwt aoetfelSoclif ;freognEnclodu r t

ORDER 

Appellees Randall and Claudia Childress (Childresses) has filed a petition for 

rehearing following issuance of the Court's opinion in this matter on August 3, 2021. 

Appellant Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) opposes the petition. 

The Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure set forth limited grounds for rehearing. 

See M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a). A rehearing may by granted only if the petitioner raises any 

overlooked fact material to the decision, an overlooked question presented that wouldthave 

been decisive to the case, or any statute or controlling decision that conflicts with the 

Court's opinion. See.M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a). 

Childresses appear to present their petition under subsecfion (iii) of M. R. 

App. P. 20(1)(a), arguing the Court overstepped its authority to answer certified questions 

under M. R. App. P. 15(3), by resolving issues outside of the scope of the certified question. 

However, the issue Childresseses now object to the Court addressing—whether they 

established loss of "personal identity" property sufficient to support an award of parasitic 

emotional distress damages pursuant to Maloney v. Home & Inv. Ctr., Inc., 2000 MT 34, 

298 Mont. 213, 994 R2d 1124—was not only raised by the Childresses in their briefing, 

but argued therein at length: "the loss in this case involves not run-of-the-mill personal 

property. Rather at issue here is the special case of what the Court has recognized as 

08/31/2021

Case Number: OP 20-0526
`personal-identity property.' Maloney v. Home & Inv. Ctr., Inc., 2000 MT 34, ¶ 67, 298 

Mont. 213, 994 P.2d 1124." They further argued that the personal property lost in this 

case "is more than sufficient to satisfy the standard articulated in Maloney and its lineage." 

It is axiomatic that the purview of the Court to answer certified questions includes the 

ability to address issues raised in the briefing. Cf. M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a)(ii) (overlooking 

issue presented by counsel may be ground for rehearing). 

The Childresses have not raised any overlooked fact material to the decision, any 

overlooked question presented that would have been decisive to the case, or any law that 

conflicts with the Court's opinion. See M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a). Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED. 

The Clerk is directed to mail copies hereof to counsel of record for the respective 

parties. 

DATED this 3 ( day of August, 2021. 

4-"e "71/&-•\_ 

Chief Justice 

Ift4 -414 1 L, 

Justices
# C_2019318EN.01000302.xml

| 23.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9482 — SKT/Comcast/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 318/06)

On 2 September 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 32019M9482. 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 32019M9482. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
#### State v. Thomas-Randall

111,436

10/09/2015

Denied

Unpublished
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 18675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9781]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

April 1, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD)

    OMB Number: 1535-0086.
    Form Number: PD F 5262.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Reinvestment Request for Treasury Notes or Bonds.
    Description: PD F is used to request information to support a 
request to reinvest Treasury Notes or Bonds at Maturity.
    Respondents: Individuals or households, Business or other for-
profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 140,000.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 6 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 142,000 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Vicki S. Thorpe (304) 480-6553, Bureau of the 
Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, West VA 26106-1328.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-9781 Filed 4-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-40-P
Addendum A



 EXHIBIT 10.23 
  
 ADDENDUM A TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This addendum is made on February 10, 2003 by and between QUANTUM Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. (herein
“QUANTUM”) and Alan Niedzwiecki (herein “Employee”). For mutual and adequate exchange of consideration, the parties mutually agree to modify Employee’s Employment Agreement of August 1, 2002, as follows, effective February
10, 2003. 
  
 Section 2 of the above referenced Employment
Agreement is hereby modified via incorporating the following additional language. 
  
 “2.1 (a) Effective February 10, 2003, Employee’s base salary is increased to $320,000 per year.” 
  
  

					
	/s/	 	 Alan Niedzwiecki        

	 	 	 	/s/	 	 Brian Olson        


	 	 	Alan Niedzwiecki	 	 	 	 	 	 Brian Olson
 Chief Financial
Officer

	 	 	Dated:  Feb. 10, 2003	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 QUANTUM Fuel Systems
 Technologies
Worldwide, Inc.

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Dated:  Feb. 10, 2003
S95A0824.

#### WILLIAMS v. SKANDALAKIS et al.

(461 SE2d 226)

Benham, Chief Justice.

Acting pro se and asserting his status as a pauper, seeking thereby to avoid the payment of costs, Williams filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County in which he sought various forms of damages and injunctive relief against various officials and employees of Fulton County, the City of Atlanta, the City of East Point, and DeKalb County. The superior court denied filing of the complaint under OCGA § 9-15-2 (d), which requires that such complaints be reviewed prior to filing and that filing be denied

> if the judge determines that the pleading shows on its face such a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact that it cannot be reasonably believed that the court could grant any relief against any party named in the pleading .. .

Id. Since our review of the complaint indicates that the trial court was correct in concluding that Williams’s complaint met that standard, we affirm the judgment denying filing. Our ruling makes moot Williams’s motion in this Court for a writ of mandamus directed to the court below, and that motion is, therefore, dismissed.

The claims asserted in the complaint may be divided into two categories: those seeking invalidation of zoning and animal control legislation on constitutional grounds, and those alleging wrongdoing by officials. The claims regarding the constitutionality of various legislative enactments do not present justiciable issues because there is no allegation that Williams has exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to such matters, which is necessary before equity will intervene. *Burson v. Faith,*227 Ga. 526 (181 SE2d 827) (1971). The claims alleging wrongdoing by officials do not present justiciable issues because no facts have been alleged showing illegal conduct; bald assertions of impropriety are insufficient absent specific allegations as to how the defendant’s conduct violated the law. *Cargill v. Zant,*207 Ga. App. 393 (427 SE2d 809) (1993).

Because the claims asserted either failed to show that they were ripe for adjudication or failed to allege sufficient facts, they were facially invalid and did not serve to put the defendants on notice of *694the existence of a claim against them. See *Hawkins v. Rice,*203 Ga. App. 537 (417 SE2d 174) (1992). The trial court was, therefore, correct in denying filing.

Decided September 11, 1995 —

Reconsideration denied October 2, 1995.

Mitchell Williams, *pro se.*

*Ellis, Funk, Goldberg, Labovitz & Campbell, William C. Campbell,*for appellees.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
EXHIBIT 99.1


   AT THE COMPANY:                             INVESTOR RELATIONS:
   Garrett L. Dominy                           Harvey A. Goralnick
   Chief Financial Officer                     Bernadette Maglione
   (770) 993-0291                              FOCUS PARTNERS LLC
   www.atpx.com                                (212) 752-9445
                                               info@focuspartners.com

                     ATP TO TRADE ON NATIONAL MARKET SYSTEM

Atlanta, GA August 7, 1998 - Advanced Technical Products, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATPX)
announced the transfer of its common stock to the National Market System
effective August 11, 1998, from Nasdaq Small Cap. The Company will continue
trading under the symbol ATPX.

"The move to the National  Market  System is an exciting  milestone  for ATP,"
stated  Chairman,  President  and CEO,  James S. Carter.  "We  anticipate  the
increased  visibility  resulting from the NMS listing will benefit our current
shareholders  and  attract   additional   sponsorship  from   institutions  by
increasing trading volume and providing liquidity."

ATP has been traded on Nasdaq Small Cap since October 31, 1997, as a result of
the merger of Lunn Industries, Inc. and TPG Holdings, Inc. The Company designs,
develops and manufactures advanced composite based materials and products. ATP
is one of a few companies with the ability to utilize multiple processes, such
as autoclave lamination, filament winding, resin transfer molding and metal
bonding to make products for the aerospace and defense markets, as well as for
commercial applications.

EXCEPT FOR THE HISTORICAL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, THIS PRESS RELEASE
CONTAINS FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS REGARDING THE PRESENT INTENTIONS AND
EXPECTATIONS OF MANAGEMENT. CERTAIN FACTORS BEYOND ATP'S CONTROL WHICH COULD
CAUSE ATP'S RESULTS TO DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM THOSE MADE IN FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, GENERAL MARKET CONDITIONS,
DEPENDENCE ON THE DEFENSE AND AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES, THE LEVEL OF MILITARY
EXPENDITURES AND COMPETITION IN THE MARKETS FOR ATP'S PRODUCTS, ARE MORE FULLY
DESCRIBED IN ATP'S FORM 10-K AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION.